2020 LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2020 LEGISLATIVE REPORT A PUBLICATION OF THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 825 Fifth Avenue SE | Olympia, WA 98501 | 360.943.5717 or 800.859.9272 | www.wasa-oly.org 2020 Session Overview Dan Steele, Assistant Executive Director, Government Relations The 2020 Legislative Session, the second-year session of the 66th Biennial Session, was another rollercoaster ride. Educators entered the session with somewhat low expectations, especially regarding funding. Growth in state Table of Contents revenues, while continuing to climb above forecasts, was beginning to show clear signs of slowing. In addition, forecasts also predicted substantial, required 2020 Session Overview ........................................... 1 Maintenance Level costs (required spending to provide currently authorized services, including adjustments—up or down—in caseloads or enrollment and 2020 Supplemental Operating Budget: other mandatory expenses, such as inflation). It appeared much of the available ESSB 6168 ........................................................ 13 revenue would be off the table to address entitlement expenditures before the Budget Details: K–12 Enhancements ............... 17 game even began—and regardless of available revenues, legislators tend to shy Budget Details: Compensation .......................... 26 away from significant increases in a supplemental budget year. Budget Details: State Agency Adjustments ....... 27 Additional Details .............................................. 27 On top of the budget realities, legislators continued to suffer from the so-called “McCleary fatigue.” It was a frustrating, phantom illness, with no basis in reality, 2020 Supplemental Capital Budget: but it continued to cloud budget discussions. There is clear evidence in the 2019– ESSB 6248 ........................................................ 36 21 Operating Budget adopted last year that legislators have shifted their focus Education-Related Bills away from K–12 education—a shift that was expected to (and did) continue. That Passed—Titles .......................................... 40 The first signal that educators were facing an uphill battle regarding funding Education-Related Bills came with the release of OSPI’s 2020 Supplemental Operating Budget request. that Passed ....................................................... 41 Superintendent Reykdal’s decision package consisted of an almost token Education-Related Bills $65 million increase in funding (not including an undefined request to increase that Died—Titles ................................................ 76 staffing allocations). To any of us, $65 million is huge, but in the context of the Education-Related Bills state budget, which appropriates almost $30 billion per biennium to K–12, the that Died ............................................................ 79 request was almost budget dust and would do little to positively impact school Heath Care, Pensions, Financials, and districts or student learning, even if the request was accepted. Other Issues ...................................................... 90 In comparison, a $65 million request really IS huge, sitting next to the governor’s Alliance of Educational request of $36.6 million in Policy Level increases. And this $36.6 million increase Associations ...................................................... 95 does not include his proposed $86.3 million shift of an early learning program from OSPI to the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (for details, see WASA 2019–20 Legislation & Finance the Operating Budget review, later in this Report). Including that transfer would Commiittee .......................................................... 101 have resulted in a K–12 Policy Level reduction of $49.7 million. WASA’s 2020 Legislative While the governor’s K–12 budget request was disappointing, his explanation Platform ........................................................... 102 and rationale for his overall package was disheartening. As noted above, we were facing a Legislature stuck in the mire of their own self-imposed “McCleary fatigue,” but at least most legislators were strategic (or at least political) enough to avoid publicly expressing that attitude. Governor Inslee, however, never hesitated to overtly step around K–12, noting that the Legislature has “fulfilled its constitutional obligation” and the state needed to focus attention on other matters. WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PAGE 1 2020 LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2020 SESSION OVERVIEW Legislators attempted to provide additional funding supports to schools and school districts and both House and Senate proposals would have provided more appropriations than the state superintendent or the governor requested. Unfortunately, as budget-writers began negotiating a final, compromise budget, the coronavirus outbreak was coming more into focus. Legislators realized they needed to scale back their plans in order to provide for additional reserves and ended up adopting a budget that expended less than either the House or Senate originally proposed. Final funding for K–12 education was “modest” (to restate how the governor described his original budget). When the budget landed on the governor’s desk, he felt it was necessary to take some early action to protect state resources as impacts of the coronavirus were already eating into state revenues. And a “modest” budget became even more so. Governor vetoes eliminated $235 million in new or expanded funding (from a total increase of $961 million in Policy Level adds). K–12 vetoes accounted for thirty-five percent ($83.1 million) of those cuts. So, the 2020 Supplemental Operating Budget did little for K–12 education. A major focus of second-year, supplemental sessions is typically on policy issues. Did K–12 education fare better there? McCleary fatigue is not just a funding issue—it extends to a general lack of energy and enthusiasm towards education policy as well. This is not to say that there was not an abundance of education- related policy introduced. Certainly, there was much activity, but little forward progress. Many of our major priorities were given courtesy hearings, ultimately rejected, or outright ignored. Don’t misunderstand—we didn’t lose every battle (mostly due to the continued engagement of our members), but just about every success was an uphill fight. Rather than run through a series of legislation here, let’s examine the action on priorities in WASA’s 2020 Legislative Platform. (For a review of the many bills in which WASA was active, see the Bills Passed and Bills Not Passed sections later in this Report.) How WASA’s Priorities Fared As noted above, the lack of positive action on education-related issues was not due to the lack of available legislation. While WASA was active on hundreds of bills, we maintained our focus on a short list of priorities recommended by WASA’s Legislation & Finance Committee and adopted by WASA’s Board of Directors. Coming into the 2020 session, we understood that revenues would be limited, and legislators would likely focus on issues other than K–12 education. Given this, WASA encouraged school administrators to temper their expectations. At the same time, we knew that 2020 would be a prime time to begin (hopefully continue) conversations of importance to K–12. We are all in this for the long- haul, and we encouraged administrators to fully engage in the legislative process, further educating legislators about school district needs and building momentum for the 2021 session. Many of the planks in WASA’s 2020 Legislative Platform require additional funding—and a few of the items would require a substantial investment. In adopting the association’s Legislative Agenda, the Legislation & Finance Committee and the Board of Directors established a clear and principled set of requests that did not simply ask legislators for what we thought might be able to achieve, but what educators actually need. Undercutting our own arguments and asking for less than what is required to establish and run a high achieving school district may get you a “win” in the short run, but that cannot be sustained. In WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PAGE 2 2020 LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2020 SESSION OVERVIEW addition, history has shown, when you return to the Legislature for more, they will be frustrated and confused (and potentially angry), not understanding why you are unable to function with the funding you asked for and they provided. WASA’s Platform laid out a set of bold, honest requests. Certainly, we understood the state’s fiscal constraints (and the short runway in this 60-day session) and we were pragmatic and strategic in an effort to achieve as much success as we could in 2020; however, we positioned ourselves to be ready for 2021. It was clear, if we received less than we asked (which we correctly assumed would be the case), legislators, our members, and the public will know we were not provided with what we clearly stated we needed. And no one can say they are surprised when we return with the same requests later (we assumed this “later” would be next year, but more on that in a moment). In addition to laying out WASA’s requests for the Legislature, our Platform laid out a guide for school administrators to follow in speaking with one voice. And understand that this common voice goes beyond our membership and extends through many of our partners’ positions. If you compare WASA’s Platform with the Platforms adopted by our