Oh my fellow Washingtonians,
That giant yellow ball in the sky tells me that spring has finally arrived – and none too late (if you’re a parka) – which means most of you are on the water standing on surfboards with kayak paddles or drying your camping tarps or giving those wool socks that weekend break they so deserve. It’s time to put away the fleece jacket and simply go with the vest. But before you hit the great outdoors – all lathered up in your SPF 75 – take a quick gander at what the education gods have fed us this week.
The Full(?) Court Press: House democrats moved to pass a bill late this session that would eliminate tax exemptions to out of state banks for certain mortgages. HB 2078 passed on a majority vote in the house, but as it was deemed a tax increase, so it needed 2/3 majority (thank you, Mr. Eyman)to actually “pass.” The bill sponsors took great pains to ensure that the rules were in fact being interpreted correctly, and that there was no way around the 2/3 majority. So many pains that some thought the script was downright strange. Tacoma Rep. Laurie Jinkins: How many votes would it take to pass a bill that repeals a tax preference for mortgage bankers? (Two-thirds as demanded by Initiative 1053.) Seattle Rep. Jamie Pedersen: Does the speaker have the authority to decide whether that requirement violates the state constitution’s provision that bills must receive a simple majority? (No, that’s up to the courts.) Seattle Rep. David Frockt: Could the members of the House overrule the speaker’s ruling and instead declare that I-1053 is unconstitutional? (No, that’s up to the courts.) The Tacoma News Tribune’s Peter Callahan wondered whether TVW viewers were witnessing the birth of a lawsuit. A lawsuit that if birthed would enjoy the support of Governor Gregoire. Will said birth be blocked by the Senate Dems who didn’t take the issue to the floor? (Don’t even think about a condom joke here.) (I’m not.)
Stay tuned.
Slam Dunk: While they didn’t get a visit from the President, the graduating class at Bridgeport did have some pretty good VIP representation at their ceremony. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis gave the commencement speech and the event was attended by Governor Gregoire. Bridgeport graduated all of their seniors and most are going on to some form of higher education. Pretty good outcome for a district serving mostly low income kids.
Dream Team: Another Washington School District getting national attention, Federal Way, was spotlighted in Huffington Post this week. Their “Academic Acceleration” program puts kids on track for advanced placement courses, once they meet state standard. Kids don’t opt in to advanced courses, they have to opt out. This is a critical strategy in their effort to eliminate the achievement gap in Federal Way. Hats off to my DT down in the ‘Way, Superintendent Rob Neu and Assistant Superintendent Josh Garcia. The team did this within their existing budget, and continue to look at other types of innovation as a means to propelling kids forward. (Please, note, Josh, I didn’t mention your fabulous ties.) (until now)
MVP: Speaking of graduating classes, who remembers their valedictorian’s speech? Here’s one you probably wouldn’t forget. Enjoy!
Free Throws:
- The Feds have issued a new set of I3 grant conditions. This time, the private match isn’t so big and the focus is rural. (Jerry Dyar, if you’re out there, GET ON IT.)
- We’ve heard and read a lot lately about changes to teacher evaluations, here, some DC teachers talk about what their new system has meant to them. (I’m sure Michelle Rhee won’t get credit for this.)
- Ed Trust West lays down some good tracks for discussing and organizing on seniority-based layoffs.
- A judge in Wisconsin has issued a permanent injunction against the new law curbing collective bargaining rights.
- School districts are using new and unusual ways of hiring – including videos of lessons.
- Take your electronic book thingy to the beach and read Joel Klein’s piece in Atlantic Monthly.
- RSVP to the Education Revolution Speaker Series event next Thursday.
Why is it that a person with an inquiring mind (possibly C Korsmo) does not consider the definitiions of tax exemptions and tax shifts with respect to the application of the law fomerly known as Init 1053? For example, when the first exemption was granted, the budget was unbalanced by a certain amount. The budget was balanced midbudget cycle by 1) growth in revenue or 2) by cutting something. And in the next budget cycle, the cost of the exemption ceased to be on budget (creating the now famous “hidden” budget).
The fact is that there cancelling a tax exemption does not increase State revenue (an item in Init 1053) because the tax shift device has allocated the expense to all taxpayers without exemptions. And the cancellation of a tax exemption does not increase or change the taxes for any corporation having an exemption. If the tax rate was, say, .00054 in 2000, it will be the same in 2012, thus no applicatiion of Init 1053. It is possible that the corporation tax bill will be different but that has to do with the corporate earnings. For instance, if the corporation is less successful now than in 2000, its bill will be reduced. But cancelling the exemption is not the cause of change.
Timothy Eyman deserves no particular credit unless it shall be that he forced his fellow citizens to follow the money. Ironic, isn’t it, that his Init 1053 could not garner 66 percent approval.
No one who favors education can fail to notice that we cannot afford to maintain billions in tax exemptions by way of cutting funds for public interests such as education.