Opinion ID: 2615891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: impact of the levy failure

Text: The surplus came about in the following manner. In its final budget for the 1975-76 school year, the district estimated the total expenditures for the school year in the amount of $112,635,483. However, only 94.2 percent of the budgeted amount was spent, and the total surplus amounted to $6.5 million. Further, the 1975-76 final budget underestimated total revenues by approximately $1.5 million, with the result that the total amount of surplus was approximately $8 million. The examination of some historical trends will help to understand the effect of the 1975 excess levy failure. The first trend is one of declining student enrollment. The second trend, during at least the first part of this 10-year period, was an actual increase in total staff rather than a proportional reduction to match the decreasing enrollment. This increase was mainly attributed to administrative and support staff, rather than teaching staff. At one point administrative and support staff actually became larger than the teaching staff and remained larger even during the 1975-76 school year, the first year impacted by the levy failure. The overall staff ratio did not start to decrease until the end of that school year. Levy failure had the effect of eliminating salary increases for the 1975-76 school year for all the district's staff. This is by reason of the fact that the various collective bargaining agreements made salary increases for that year dependent upon either passage of the excess levy or a special legislative appropriation for salary increases, neither of which events occurred. As to staffing, the levy failure had only a minimal effect. In the following summary of evidence, terms have these meanings: Certificated staff means those district employees, such as teachers, certain administrators, nurses, librarians, etc., who are required by law to have a state certificate to hold their position. Classified staff means simply those district employees who do not hold such certificates, and is synonymous with noncertificated staff. It includes custodians, secretaries, etc. Categorical staff means those employees, whether certificated or classified, who are associated with some federal or state program, such as the program for the handicapped. Noncategorical staff means those employees, whether certificated or classified, who are not associated with a categorical program and are sometimes referred to as basic staff. Certificated staff ratios in the Seattle School District, whether for total staff or noncategorical staff only, vary little from the statewide average. [25] However, classified staff ratios, whether for total staff or noncategorical staff only, are much richer in the district than in the state as a whole. Although district employees, both certificated and classified, received no salary increases for 1975-76, average salaries for such employees were still above the statewide average. For certificated staff, the statewide average was $14,481, while the district average was $15,158. For classified staff, the statewide average was $9,412, while the district average was $10,583. For districts with enrollment of 20,000 and over, the average certificated salary was $15,691, about $530 more than the Seattle average. However, for these same districts the average classified salary was $10,128, about $450 less than the Seattle average. The pupil-staff ratio, taking all certificated staff into account, was 15.9 to 1 in 1974-75 and 17.9 to 1 in 1975-76, for an increase of two pupils per staff member. Taking only noncategorical certificated staff into account, the respective ratios are 18.8 to 1, and 21.3 to 1, for an increase of 2.5 pupils per noncategorical staff member. The pupil-classroom teacher ratio in 1974-75 was 20.5 to 1 and in 1975-76 it was 22.5 to 1, for an increase of two pupils per classroom teacher. The pupil-staff ratio, taking all classified staff into account, was 25.68 to 1 in 1974-75 and 30.5 to 1 in 1975-76, for an increase of 4.8 pupils per staff member. Taking only noncategorical classified staff into account, the respective ratios were 37.9 to 1 and 45.7 to 1, for an increase of 7.3 pupils per noncategorical staff member. In short, the increases in the various pupil-staff ratios, especially in the pupil-classroom teacher ratio and the pupil-certificated staff ratio, were minimal. What is the relationship between money and the quality of a child's education? Specifically, do the things that more money typically buys, i.e., richer staffing ratios and higher salary levels for a district's staff, make a difference in terms of quality of education? This precise issue was explored in 4 days of testimony by three of the Nation's leading experts on the subject: Dr. Walter I. Garms, Jr., of the University of Rochester; Dr. James Guthrie, of the University of California; and Dr. John Pincus, of the Rand Corporation and a member of the California State Board of Education. The first two witnesses were called by the district, and the third by the State. Amazingly, all three experts agreed on the most important point: there is no scientific proof of a positive relationship between student achievement levels and various types of input, such as expenditures per pupil, student-teacher ratios, and staff salaries. To summarize: (1) The district ended the 1975-76 school year with $8 million surplus, and if early payment had not been made to the riffed teachers the surplus would have been $9.8 million. (2) The average salary for certificated and classified employees was still above the state average. (3) The increase in pupil-staff ratios was minimal. (4) There is no scientific proof of a positive relationship between student achievement level and various types of input, such as expenditures per pupil, student-teacher ratios and staff salaries. On this record the district has failed to prove that the funds available were not sufficient to discharge the State's duty to provide ample education for the resident children of this state.