001Greetings, school directors. We've got a small but mighty group joining so far, but perhaps uh more will come to us here in the next couple minutes. So, I'm going to go ahead and get us started. It is Thursday, April 10th, and we start with a people's acknowledgement. First, uh we acknowledge that our public schools and facilities operate on the traditional lands of indigenous peoples. As we engage and continue to engage in the 2025 legislative session, we remember that the lands of our state capital were cared for by the people of the Squaxon and Esquali tribes. We make these acknowledgements to open up a space of recognition, inclusion, and respect for our sovereign tribal partners, and all indigenous students, family, staff, legislators, and board members in our communities across the state. Thanks so much for joining
002today. This is uh the last of three in sessions of the 2025 legislative session unless of course we go to a special session and need to call you back here for um some special issue areas TBD. Uh there are only 17 days remaining in this legislative session, the regular legislative session due and scheduled to end on April 27th. We call that snee die. uh will that give our legislators and the governor uh enough time to adopt a final budget? Uh the answer to that question is still very much in the air. Every day I ask multiple people uh who are also in the mix and um I get different answers from everyone depending on what day it is and what time of day it is. And so I think it's really anybody's guess right now.
003They have a huge lift in between now and the end of end of the legislative session. Um especially considering that given the governor's message last week about uh limiting any sort of new taxes uh that both budgets were very much built on the understanding that a revenue increase would help support special education funding and MSOC funding. We're all kind of just waiting here with baited breath to determine what what might be possible given these challenges ahead of them. So, I wish I could tell you more about what's going to happen, but uh not being Nostradamus, uh I am unable to tell you. But as soon as we have any definitive information, you know, I will let you know. Uh in the meantime, we're continuing to keep the pedal to the metal with our legislators. I
004would be encouraging you to do the same. Please reach out to your own legislators about what the implications for um a budget that doesn't include an increase to the special education multiplier or what a budget without material supplies and operating costs funding. What kind of implications that might have to your school district this year before you close out the school year and then looking ahead to the next school year. I think their understanding of what really the implications of a lack of an increase in funding in either or both of those those areas will cause for you will be important data for them to be reminded of. I imagine you've already shared that with them uh but uh I think it bears repeating. I see our special guest uh has joined us. My friend and
005colleague Nasu Nashida is joining us today uh to give some perspective from the Washington Education Association about how the session's going, how it's gone, uh some of the legislative priorities of the organization um and then some other policies they're tracking. NASA and I work closely together um in our current roles, but uh she was pre previously at OSPI. I was previously previously at OSPI. we weren't there at the same time. Um but we are continuously in the in the same circles and um we are able to bring joy to one another even amidst some pressure and pain. So uh hope you all have people like that in your professional lives as well. Uh but I wanted to make sure NASA had an opportunity to share some WA perspective. They are really important partners to us.
006Um, and as we acknowledge, sometimes we're not always on the exact same page, but mostly we are. Mostly we are in alignment about what our K12 system needs, um, and how we can collectively push on those needs together. So, Naso, thanks so much for being here with us. I'm going to take this screen off. Um, I did, uh, provide a hyperlink in the agenda to the 2025 legislative priorities from WA. So, if you want if you want me to pull up anything at any point in our conversation, you just let me know. Otherwise, we'll just have a chat about Yeah, great. what you're excited about and what's keeping you up at night. Oh, there's a lot of that. I I may not go into all of that, but um thank you, Marissa. Thank you, Wazda
007folks. Um I'm Nasu Nishida. I'm a lobbyist with the Washington Education Association and I've been with the organization in this role for about three years and prior to that did some OSPI stuff. Um, I did two stints at OSPI and I've also uh worked in a teaching nonprofit for about 12 years of that time. But through through and through Marissa and I have somehow circled around and in and out of each other at these different um spots, which is kind of fun. So, I I want to um kind of talk about some of WA priorities going into session, how those have transpired over the course of the session. um talk about some areas of defense that we had not anticipated um coming into this session or had not thought would be as big of a
008deal as they have been. Um, and then kind of finish up with some things related to revenue, which is also a priority for us, and other ways that I'm hoping we can um, as education partners keep working together, keep hammering away because, as Marissa said, I think there is more probably in common than there isn't in than there isn't. And um, sometimes we forget about that. We actually are are stronger together than separate. Um, please feel free to ask questions. Um, and I think Marissa's monitoring the chat, but feel free to interrupt me if there's a question that we can address right away. Yeah, I'll just I'll just let our folks know. pretty standard operating procedure for us um with a a guest presenter that if y'all uh have a question for NSA uh please
009type it in the Q&A section and then when there's a good opportunity um for her to take a pause I will uh I will field that question with her so she can answer it in real time. So perfect. Thank you. Um, so we we always always, no matter what, if it's a short session, a long session, we always come in, WA always comes in with a long list of priorities, some that are more realistic than others. Um, and a lot of our priorities, uh, happen as a bubbling up of membership, um, our members interested in a variety of things across education. And that's probably actually something similar in the WASDA world as it is with WA. You are all interested in things specific to your roles or your context that sometimes are shared across the
010state, sometimes within specific areas, but bubbling those things up um as priorities is always something that happens in our organization. So, we came in with a lot of priorities this coming session knowing that it could possibly be a rocky year for the budget, but maybe not totally understanding how rocky it has turned out to be. Um, so I'm just going to share with you some of our top level priorities coming into the session and then Marissa can share the longer legislative agenda. Um, we came in very strong on more special ed funding, the need for more special ed funding. And the nice thing about that priority is it was shared at large across education partners, including I know WAZDA um has had that as a priority. And it's always great to be coming in with
011partnership and kind of a united front on on these priorities and that certainly um has been one and probably will be one continuing forward. We also had a priority around um increasing wages for classified staff. We call them ESPs in the WA world. Education support professionals. These are classified staff who are para educators, front office staff, food service workers, janitors, maintenance. Um they could also be transportation people who drive or or maintain vehicles for the district. Um, this has been an ongoing priority for WA as well is that we want to see increased wages for these what we what we believe and feel are some of the lowest paid workers in our education system. And for many of our members who are in the classified ranks, we are seeing them have to pick up a
012second or third job. Sometimes they are leaving and leaving those positions entirely because they just can't sustain um on the wages that they are earning despite loving what they do and wanting to stay in it. They just can't make ends meet. So this is one that we have been um pushing on the last couple of sessions. We will continue to push on it. Um but it was a big big priority for us. Um there was also generally a priority on increased funding at large for education. Um so that could include MSOC, that could include looking at LAP, that could include a lot of varieties of where that education funding could come in. But just knowing that generally um education funding has not kept pace with the costs um that districts are facing and we need
013more money in you know we need more money funneling into the system. And then the last um big priority that I will share with you knowing that there are many many others um that WA has pushed forward and you can see linked um is that we were very interested in more educator supports training professional learning for under better understanding and dealing with student behaviors that we were seeing in classrooms and in schools. This has also been an ongoing priority for WA. We we have members who don't feel that they are adequately trained and um this was prior to COVID but has increased postcoid as we um as we have had kids return to the schools. Um so this has been an emphasis on more professional learning, more opportunities to grow and understand um the needs
014of students and how educators can better address those needs. So, knowing those were some of our big priorities, where are we today? There I think there's 17 days of session left. I'm not counting. Yes, I am. Um, where are we today with those priorities? Well, with special education, and I'm I'm sure Marissa has um I'm sure you are all versed in this. We we really like what the Senate has brought to the table in their proposed budget around special education funding. It's big. It's grand. it's, you know, it's probably a little too grand. Um, they'll have to come down from that. But we do like the Senate's version of special education funding and what they obviously as a chamber feel is important to education. So, um, we're happy to see that work in their budget,
015that priority. Um, around the classified wage increases, that proposal, that idea is dead for this session. Um it is not a cheap proposal um and it's not necessarily super easy to implement within the state budget um allocation system. We are going to keep chugging away but that idea is essentially dead for this session. um around student supports um or supports for student behaviors. Um we have not seen any anything specific coming into budgets around um providing more professional learning, but we are holding on to inklings um within the House budget that deal with inclusionary practices. How do we better equip our educators both general ed and special ed to work with a variety of student populations who are in their classrooms? how can we better integrate students with IEPs into general ed classrooms? So, there
016is some money in their special ed proposal that has money for demonstration sites, pilot sites, things where our educators could tag on to and grow their own professional learning. Um, and then around the general education funding, you know, more money into the system is always good. We we have been supportive of MSOC increases mostly seen in the Senate's budget. So we will continue to also be supportive and encouraging of that particular piece as well. Um there are there are some other things that we are also interested coming out of this session. We have been supportive of um a bills that will kind of clarify legislation from last year on parental rights and student protections. Those two bills um are Senate Bill 5181 which is sitting in the house now. They have cross chambers and then
017House Bill 1296 which is sitting in the senate. They are different versions. So they one is very small. The Senate's version is kind of narrow and focused. The House version is a little bit broader and has more in it. One of the areas that we like about Senate or about House Bill 1296 that is not in the Senate version is it does have some anti- retaliation language for educators. When an educator helps helps students, provides them with resources, um meets the needs that they have been addressed um or they have been brought forward to them by the students, we want to ensure that our educators are set up to keep those kinds of supports for students that keep the kind of needs at the forefront in order for them to better be able to learn
018and focus in their schools. So, we are we do like that section of 1296 in particular. It's not in the other Senate bill. Um, so we're watching those those bills go through to see those do not have a one of them has a money implication. Um, I'm sure you you are well aware has um more of a ding on districts who don't um kind of follow state law, state process in 1296. um it is not in 5181 in the same way. So we're watching those particular bills and then shifting to more of a defensive stance which we again you know every session you kind of come in and you never know what you're going to get. Um this year was more um out of left field kind of issues than we had anticipated. So I
019just kind of want to run through some of those. I'm sure many of these you have heard about or resonate um in some way, shape, or form with your districts. In Governor Eninsley's, former Governor Eninsley's budget that he um produced and published in mid December, we saw that the National Board stipens were eliminated. National Board if you are not familiar it's a um optional certification that educators can pay into as a fee to get their national board. It's a rigorous process. You can do it from one to three years. You can bite off component pieces of it. And we have had an emphasis in our state for probably 25 years of recognizing the work and the energy that these teachers have gone through to attain their national board. So there are two kind of stipens
020associated with that that the state has funded. One is the base stipend of $5,000 plus inflation. So over that time period that inflation makes that base um stipend about $6,200. And then the second stipen is for high poverty schools. If you are an NBCT that works in a high poverty school, as adjusted by free and reduced price lunch in that school, you also get a flat $5,000 stipend on top of your base stipen. So it could be any, you know, it's upwards of $11,000 plus dollars for a teacher who is all has that national board, is serving in a challenging or high poverty school and has in many ways been dependent. it has been a reliable um part of their paycheck for the last 25 years and to see it just eliminated whole hog was
021alarming to us. So um many of you probably know an NBCT in some way, shape or form. Um there's a lot of them in our state. Um we have I think over 12,000 educators have received national board certification since the late 90s. about 8,000 of them are serving in teaching roles and receive um one or both of those stipens. Um we have also seen NBCTs move into principalhip administrator roles and some NBCTs um in our state have become superintendent of districts. You have to keep up on that every five years and you have to pay to do that as well. So we did see that eliminated and in our world a pay cut is a pay cut. They were at that time the only um teachers were the only ones receiving a pay cut in
022Eninsley's budget. And if you know NBCTs, they are very well organized, very well structured, and they will they will do what they need to do. So we have had a lot of um NBCTs reach out to their legislators, reach out to the governor, come to Olympia for a lobby day. They have written op-eds that have been published in most of the regional papers across the state. Um they are very tactical and organized group and um we were then happy to see despite Eninsley's budget the Senate and the House kept those stipens whole in their proposed budgets. But we'll talk a little bit more about um just because it's in your proposed budget doesn't mean you're in the clear. We'll talk a little bit more about that later. Another defense item that we we had anticipated
023to some degree although when budgets become tight it becomes more of an issue is around transition to kindergarten TTK programs. We um there has been really positive growth in places where there have been child care deserts or very little offerings for families and you know kind of these young learners coming into our public schools. We have been we have watched um and and anticipated some of the data that OSPI has come out around how those students perform in their readiness as they even progress through K12 and it's really promising data. We are you know it's it's a really uh great program and it has helped those students really come come into the readiness level um in terms of their performance. So coming into this session, we knew TTK was an issue with some legislators. Um,
024some legislators were very concerned about the policy of TTK. How are we ensuring that students that need it most are the ones that are receiving this program? And then there were also some legislators that were very concerned about allowing the growth kind of unfettered which is what they felt it was growth of TTK across the state. So we knew those were concerns. Um what we have now are bills that would essentially and it's really the Senate version of the bill that is going to probably be the mover. Um would basically pause growth of TTK. So, if you are a district right now offering that program in your district at this point, you would be able to continue offering that program under this bill. Um, but you if you are a district that doesn't offer or
025you're thinking about it or you're you are ready to offer it this coming year in 2526 under this bill, you would not be able to grow a program. So, are we concerned about that? Absolutely. especially for a program that looks pretty darn good in its data and is starting to really prove itself as a way for our youngest learners to get a leg up. Um, so we are concerned about that. We have testified con on both the Senate and House versions and it really it's a budget item. Um, so we will not know until the final kind of what what the legislature decides on that. Um some other areas that we are concerned about and didn't again realize we had to defend necessarily coming into this session also are in mostly the Senate's version of
026the budget. We have um TEP which is teacher and principal evaluation. We see the elimination of about $8 million for they call them 664 grants but they are training I grants that go to districts to train um principles who evaluate teachers. They also provide some framework training for teachers. They are a support to districts to ensure that evaluators are properly trained in their district's chosen framework and that that process is established with especially those new principles coming to that district. The elimination of those dollars in the Senate budget is a concern to WA. We did not anticipate that. It was not a conversation that was even talked about. um it didn't come out until the Senate released their budget in March that we realized oh wow okay we didn't we didn't we didn't see that
027coming. The other um area of concern is around the best grants beginning educator support or mentoring grants. Not every district receives these grants, but a large portion of districts receive grants to support new teacher new teachers or new educators in their first or second year coming into districts, brand new baby educators. We want to support them. We want to keep them going in the in these professions. Um that particular pot of money is being cut in half in the Senate's proposed budget. also a concern. We know even if there are budget reductions happening at large across districts, we also know there will be hiring. That still happens. We will still have districts who will need to hire, especially in chronic shortage areas like special education. That will not change. Um and even if RIFF notices
028are going out, you typically do have hiring notifications also coming out for some very specific roles. So we do want to make sure some level of best funding is available to districts to keep those supports going. So those are two areas in the Senate budget we had not anticipated that also came out um that we are very concerned about. Can I ask a question about those two before you? Yeah, the um we we understand that uh OSPI was asked to share a list of all the proviso dollars and programs that fund from the legislature through them and then are dispersed in a variety of ways. Um are best and tep uh distributed in those ways? Do they come through OSPI and then are distributed to districts? Um yes and has kind of a two-parter in
029the budget. one is more administration to OSPI that that part of the budget was untouched. Okay. And then there's these training grants which is a separate line item that is really passed through money directly to districts for the training of their either their new teachers kind of learning frameworks or their new evaluators. And is that um do all districts receive some portion of that fund or um Okay. So yeah, and I it really does depend on who are the new hires in that district that year. What level of training do they need? But all districts receive some level of the training dollars that they can access. Yeah, this is one of those sneaky areas. I I shared a couple weeks ago when the operating budgets came out, I showed the side by side between House
030and Senate. Um and you know, they just have a general line item for savings, otherwise known as cuts. Um, words matter, right? Um, and I just, um, I pointed out that in in some cases those cuts or savings to the state wouldn't have direct impact, but in some cases they would, and this would be an example of where there would be a direct impact um, uh, to teachers experiences and professional learning opportunities. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. and principles as well. In this case of TEP, their professional learning to evaluate would be impacted. And I do think so we we have raised this with the legislature. Um it is in statute that these educators need to be trained. So if these monies go away, it will be upon a district to absorb that. And I'm sure
031all of you are well aware of the unfunded mandates that already exist. You would add this to your list. you you would still have to meet state statute to train properly train make sure all the eyes are dotted tees are crossed with your evaluation teams. Um but it would fall upon the district to ensure that that happens which again some districts may be nimble enough to be able to do that and some this would be new. Yeah. Um there's a there's a follow-up question about um the uh national board certified teacher stipend. Um the question is did you say is the cut from the national board certified certification? Yes. Is it available as funding to them still in another way? Um don't know exactly what you're asking Mandy. Uh but I'll just recap and let's
032see if Nasu um agrees that there was an original proposal to cut the stipens entirely that those funds came from the state. There was a proposal by the former governor uh to eliminate those stipens but due to really good advocacy uh that that proposal has been removed is not present in the House and Senate proposed operating budgets currently. So they are not that is correct. They are not currently in the proposed budget. However, the big event happened last week where the governor came out in a press conference and said, "Yeah, you know, Senate and House, I am not digging your revenue sources, your new revenue sources. It's the fit fit tax. It's the intangible tax. I am not digging it. It is untested. It is un We don't know what untested, meaning the court hasn't
033looked at that. It could take a long time. I'm not digging that. You know, one of you has booked 20 billion for two billion for it, one of you has booked four billion. It's a lot. You are counting and resting on this tax. And so, basically, he said I, you know, I'd go for testing it at a hundred million versus the billion. I'll do it at a much smaller amount. And I will just tell you that threw a wrench in everything. It's it essentially told the House and Senate you're back at the drawing board. The things that you booked as and including national board. You want those stipens. Yeah. You're going to have to go back to the drawing board. You don't I'm not going to sign a budget that has that kind of revenue
034from that source in it at that level. So, I will just tell you all of the things I just said. Oh, we, you know, we feel good about these things being in the House budget. Special ed, we feel good about it being in the Senate budget. Those are all subject now, folks. Back kind of back in limbo. We don't actually know where things will be at the end of this session. And really, House and Senate budget writers are kind of almost starting back at square one. Yeah. So, they are looking, and this kind of leads me into my next section, Marissa. Um, okay, which is about revenue. Um, I mentioned the FIT tax. It's a financial intangible assets tax and you you all have probably heard about it. Um, that that was quite a bit
035of money booked in these House and Senate budgets that the governor really poo pooed or said if you want it in there, you have to really do it at a small amount to really test it out. There are some other what we would call at WA progressive tax um revenue sources that we would also be interested in um that I also think are possibilities but also when they are new structures it takes it takes a while for them to come into play. It takes them being on the ballot in the fall, a vote of the people. It takes potentially court challenges. It could take 18 to 24 months to get it really going. And so the real cause for concern I would say is this next bianium, the 25 27 bienium. What sources of money
036do we have that we could actually count on? And that's when you start looking at the existing revenue possibilities that we already have in play. And that's where I'm guessing some of these budget writers, some of these um folks that are looking at finance, legislators who are looking at the finance and revenue possibilities are, you know, the come to Jesus moment has happened where the governor says, I'm I'm not sold on these things. I'm going to need you to go back and get a little more creative. So we are seeing those conversations play out that give us a lot of consternation in terms of not only special ed funding, MSOC funding, those things are all subject now to a much lower um lower threshold and we were not thrilled with where the house was going
037anyway. But no, that almost is looking like the bottom level might be where they are starting. Um, we know national board stipens are back on the table. We know that the TPEP invest money, the likelihood that those cuts remain, that that could be very plausible. Um, and I think the hard thing now is they've got floor action to pass bills. They will be having these budget conversations happening concurrently, but things start to get a little more behind closed doors. For people like Marissa and I who are trying to figure out what's going on, what's going on, how, you know, what are the conversations like, it becomes a little more opaque. We don't we don't get the transparency of a hearing. We don't get the transparency of hearing stakeholders testify. um things get a little closed
038off and it's you know you kind of just hope that you hear something that might and cross your fingers and toes and everything um that might give you some indication of what is happening. So that's all to say we are very much pushing now on the revenue conversations and um and also realizing many of the regressive taxes that we have not liked in our state are also probably going to have to be some viable funding for the next bianium at least. um about I think about both the proposed House and Senate operating budgets. Uh originally like a vin diagram. You had cuts, you had increases including special education and sped um special education and MSOC and then you have uh increases or revenue taxes, right? So they were really interdependent on one another in the
039way that they had placed them. And they were different in the House and the Senate, but there were cuts, increases, and taxes embedded together. They were all connected in both the House and the Senate, albeit differently in both the House and the Senate. They were in both. So if you take out the revenue part of that, then your tax or your your cuts get bigger and your increases get smaller. Yeah, that's math. It's not That's about as far as I can go with math. It's not good math. It's not the kind of math we like, but uh is math. Um yeah, and and there's been lots of conversation about how um Governor Ferguson, who we all are still trying to figure out, right? He is um he's not new to us because he was the
040attorney general previously, but a totally different role and responsibility and approach to things. Uh so we're all trying to navigate does he really mean no revenue? It seems like this is not a time to call him on his bluff. Um he did throw out the number 100 million. I mean the other place where he's thrown out a number 100 million is related to hiring of additional police. So it, you know, it's just that number is interesting. It's consistent. Is it arbitrary? Maybe. Um, is there a direct line between those two? Maybe. I mean, we just we just don't know. Some of this we'll know a lot more about what he means when he says things after we see what the final budget looks like. We'll be like, "Oh yeah, when he said that, that's what
041he meant. Now we know for next time." Yes. Yeah. And I think as we are starting to close in on the last, you know, really almost two weeks of session, I think we're at day seven 17 more days to go. Um, these are big conversations to have at the very end. You know, the and I hate to even say it, the special I'm not going to say the words, folks. And I don't have any wood to knock on. It's all fake wood. You know, you know what I'm getting at. I think you know, we the likelihood is very very possible because they have some very big things that still have to be worked out. Not impossible to work them out, but it takes a lot of time. And time is not something that this legislature
042is very efficient with. And there are so many issues. There are so many bills. There are bills that have budget and the matching up of those things and ensuring that you've got the money to spend. Um there are so many things that kind of have to match up in the end. And I think it's a question will will snee die on April 27th be an official snee die or will we adjourn to come back? Um and I think we will have to see. Yeah. Yeah. Um I I do understand that or I have heard through the grapevine that um Senator Robinson on the Senate side um uh it is kind of heartbroken about where things are is what I've heard. Um and I had heard that kind of sentiment previously from some of our champions
043in the House too, Representative Berg and Representative Kalen. all people who care deeply about ensuring that young people have what they need to be successful in early learning K12 and higher ed. Remember we are part of a ecosystem. Um and they are having to make these very difficult decisions not just in K12 but also in all these other areas too. Um and so it's not easy for them to I try to I try to be sure I balance frustration with also some empathy. try to communicate that with our membership because um I don't think it is with any level of um oh for lack of a better word joy. I mean they don't want to see cuts to public education in any way. Um they don't want to see cuts anywhere. They they want they
044want more growth, more opportunity, more supports for our communities and families. So um I've got a couple follow-up questions. Okay, so let's see. [Music] Um, got one about uh, does WA have a position to the Senate's proposal to cut the OSSI program? AI school improvement for short. I think Dave is your Sorry, I can see these questions. Um um we we don't have a position on that, but I will tell you again it's not um th those cuts are detrimental to some of the schools that need those supports and more. Um, so yeah. Yes. I would say in general we're not thrilled about any of the cuts to programs that impact some of our um most needy schools, some of the schools that need more supports generally. Um, so we are concerned with that across
045the board for sure. I I will also add um there there was quite a bit of slashing and going through all of the provisos in education. The bulk of them that end up with OSPI is either pass through money or they may take a little bit as administrative money. So I think the proviso slashing as well as generally state agencies taking a potential 6% across the board cut. I will just tell you that agency will get smaller. There is no way around it. And I think as you all as um school directors, as your districts are are needing support of the of the state agency, we at WA, they're a partner with us. We are realizing they will get smaller at the end of this session. It's it's probably inevitable. um and there will be
046an impact to the services they can provide which they they of course don't want. We don't ne we don't want that either. Um but it does appear to be on the horizon. Either they're going to get an acrosstheboard cut plus provisos in addition or even a even a across the board cut to agencies will be an impact for them. So, I think that is something it's hard to imagine now, but I think it could be even harder to get somebody on the horn when you need them or you may have to wait another 24 hours to get a response. Those things will I think it will be harder and harder to um find the right person there because those jobs will probably have to shift to some degree. Yeah. And in addition to that, just
047like we are potentially experiencing at the federal level, we haven't gotten there yet, but we do have a question. So, I'm signaling that is that when you cut staff, even if you don't have a direct line of communication to a state agency that supports a system, um there is so much that's invisible to us that uh state agencies are doing to support the systems that we're within. um meaning that they're processing grant applications, they are um actually disseminating dollars into the system from which you draw. And the less people there are to turn those things around, the slower uh the receipt on your end is as well. So, it's it's not just program respons and answers to questions, it's also direct funding and um availability and the and the potential that you're not getting it
048as quickly as you need it. So, not because they don't want to, but because those kinds of cuts have real implication to process. There are people behind the processes that we rely on. Um, so that that relates to a question about um this is more philosophical and none of us really have answers to this question, but uh maybe some of the fears that you might have about some of the federal education cuts to staffing loss. Have you all been having we're so focused on what's happening in this Washington? Uh we're kind of just waiting until session's over to focus another one, but have you started to have any conversations about what the implications for staffing might be? We um so we know roughly I think our state receives about 7% of our education funding is
049federal dollars. I think I believe that's about roughly what it is to our state and then that obviously is disseminated to districts in a variety of um proportions and ways based off students population and need. Um we we are concerned with what you know any cuts to education whether it be state or federal funding impacts our students in bottom line. And so we are concerned about should those things happen. What what will that mean on top of a state budget that potentially is not going to be as robust as we all have hoped? Those those are things that we are concerned about. I think it's a little still unknown and it feels um it feels like every day there's something else that piles on. So um we will see. I think for the moment we
050are most focused at least in my department on the state legislative work. Um but we are definitely tuning in to the federal and we we have our kind of our national um education association partners really focused in on the federal work and informing us on things that are happening at that level. Um so I don't have a specific answer other than to let you know we are we are concerned for sure. Yeah. I I think just to confirm the question is I think we're all a little afraid um mostly because there are so many unknowns and threats that we're not sure how they will actually play out uh operationally or financially. So it's it's another consideration we know for our state legislature to come back for a special session specifically. We've heard if there are
051cuts to Medicaid uh that that would prompt the state legislature to have to come back uh and be responsive to that, which is why the governor has prioritized keeping reserves in place, not dipping into state reserves because those may be necessary in case there are federal implications cuts there. Um there are two more questions that are not at all related. There's no easy segue, so I'm just going to throw them out there. Uh, so one's about taxes, the fit tax. Um, and any any conversations that you've heard of about unconstitutionality around them? WA have a perspective on that? Yes, and I can see that's an Eric Pickins comment and he's one of our members and I know he's also a school director, so that's fun. Hi, Eric. Um, yeah, I think there is I mean
052I for sure think there's a question about the fit and um and that is kind of where Ferguson stance has been about it being untested and you know we haven't tested this out and likely it will go to a court if it is part of the equation. Um so I I won't say anything more than um we don't we don't know what we don't know yet. I think WA is willing to back to some degree seeing if it is a viable source of revenue. I think we are supportive in that vein. Interested in that. Um and we'll just we'll just have to see if it's if it's even a possibility to move forward this year or who knows we may we may be able to come back in the future and look at it as
053well. Great. Thank you. Uh, and then the last question right now in the Q&A, although we've still got a few minutes, so if you have any more questions for NASA, please feel free to throw them in there, is about how um our organizations are prioritizing parts of the special education funding. And I'll just answer um from WADA's perspective. You know, we advocate on behalf of our members based on member adopted positions. And none of our positions or sections of our positions are weighted over other sections. But I will tell you in sort of our collective messaging as a statewide organization, what we would we would be advocating for is the most benefit for the most amount of districts, right? And so um uh what what we would think is the best most overall support is
054an increase to the multiplier. Not every district would benefit from the removal of the cap, although those who would really would. Um, so that's why we encourage you as individual districts for each of those elements that you are telling your own stories, what benefits you the most. But if a legislator asked me what would. WASDA support, we would say um, the number that benefits the 295 school districts. So we would be looking at an increase to the multiplier as sort of the first uh, opportunity to have the greatest impact. We're looking for the most money we can get for the most districts. It's pretty It's pretty simple. Yeah. Not way any other uh Yeah, I would say um Lisa, we are similar. Definitely the cap helps some districts. It doesn't help everybody. Um it's it's
055it's a fine move to make, but we really feel like the the money is in increasing the multiplier. That's where the money will come in to districts. every district will benefit from that. Um they've got to and that that's the bigger investment for sure is you you notch up those multipliers and you're you're making a commitment to more money into the system. So we would definitely say multipliers is where they need to go. They they have done work on the cap last year. I think they they did some lift there and I think there is always something about do we just eliminate the cap altogether? Fine. Um, but again, not not every district is going to qualify for that cap anyway and we need every district benefiting from this. It is it is one of
056the most costly things for districts and we need to see more of a commitment through the multiplier than we have seen. We really haven't seen much. Um, I will say one thing that we also look at is you could you could do some different money increase in just general basic ed which by default also lifts the other multipliers by putting more money into basic ed. You do lift special ed, you do lift multilingual, you do lift some of these other factors in the system, but the commitment I think by everyone is you got to you got to focus in and narrow in on special ed. It is the biggest it's a high cost item and we need to see more increase there. So we are we are with you around the multiplier being the biggest
057impact. Thanks Nu. Um I was just going to finish on a couple of things. Yeah, please. and then if there's any more questions happy to talk. Um so I do want to talk about you know there's nothing like a c crisis to get members engaged right there. We have seen some great um engagement by our membership as as I'm sure all of you maybe are seeing more engagement from your communities than you have in the past. Nothing like a crisis to get everybody on. Um we have had some rolling lobby days. So every Monday we have crews from different um educators, our members from different councils across the state that are coming to Olympia doing some advocacy work and those are in addition to our regular kind of lobby days. Um we haven't we don't
058this is not a normal thing for WA to do a rolling lobby day but this session has made it more clear we need to have better connections with our legislators to understand impact. So we have introduced kind of these rolling lobby days through um part of March and the month of April. Um we have we have several email campaigns um kind of robo emails where members can both email legislators but also to the governor. And sometimes the sign of a good email campaign is you get those legislators saying stop no more. Don't want to hear from WA anymore. those are signs that we feel like we're maybe making a little bit of a a difference there. Um, so we do have multiples of those kind of going on. And then one way that we have
059seen more activity, membership engagement has been through kind of the op-ed thing, op-ed pieces published in newspapers, either the Big E newspapers across the state or specialized regional um, papers or some other news outlets. And I did want to share with you one. Um I don't know if I can share in the chat. I think I can. Yes, I just want to share with you a I don't know if it I might have to send it to you. Um yeah, there was re I think it was on Tuesday um Bob Horton who is the Puleup um education association president, the district superintendent and then it was one of the WASDA member directors in Puallup co-authored a piece that went out in the news tribune and um thank you and it's just a another great way
060to show kind of the collaborative power of education partners coming together. Oh, sorry. I think it is a paid. Yeah, it's paid service, but just Maddie names is your member. And I just think it's a, you know, to have your educator union, your superintendent, your school director coming together, co-authoring something that is published, I think is a powerful sends a powerful message. And um just want to share that if if that is of interest to any of you and I can be helpful or Marissa can be helpful to gathering the partnership around co-writing something to be published, please please reach out. I think it is again the opportunity to collaborate and you know as we started kind of this off we probably agree on way more than we don't and sometimes it's these little nitpicky
061things that we don't necessarily agree on that become the talking point but in the end we're actually all wanting to push in the same direction on things. So, yeah, thinking about you probably I don't know if you all have had this conversation yet, but thinking about the end of session and the interim, um, uh, have you thought about if we don't get special education funding at the level we want, which we probably won't, we certainly won't get basic education funding at large at the level, what's the in what's the interim game? Um, do we shift our focus or do we stick to the same things? You and I didn't talk about this ahead of time. Sorry, we didn't. Thanks for throwing me that question. Well, I'm just kind of with it myself, too. Like, it
062seems like in a bianium, right, it's a two-year time frame. If we don't get what we want in the first year, although that's the big budget year, that we stay consistent. otherwise, you know, you're just throwing all these things back and forth and it's confusing perhaps, but also we're tired and they're tired. So anyway, I I've just been I've been mulling over like do we stay with the long game or do we shift the topic? Um I don't know just I I yeah, I don't have an answer to that. I think we stay tuned. Um I think one thing we are looking at ye at least a year two to three years forward is are we going to be in the same financial situation and I think that question then answers your question about um
063not not that we shouldn't push on more education funding or special education funding but what is what will we actually get if we are in the same financial strife another year two three years out. Um, and and I don't, you know, I I doubt special ed will move off our priority list. I think it will stay on. Our members care so much about it. I can't see it leaving and we pro we won't be satisfied until it is the obligation of the state is met there. Um, I also think, you know, it is unfortunate that there's nothing like a good lawsuit to make things happen. And I think there there could be a possibility around that as well. Yeah. Yeah. I've heard both about a special education lawsuit and also about an unfunded mandate lawsuit.
064Um because there are a lot of those and there's actually law in RCW that says the legislature is prohibited from passing any laws that aren't adequately funded. Um but some folks forgot about that. So other folks might be reminding them about it soon. Um uh one last question just because we have a few minutes time. There there are some groups out there who have been talking about revamping the school funding formula or approach. Are you all involved in those conversations? And do you have a general philosophy about a model that should be followed? Or I mean I'll just say this out loud because I've said it to our members is we could change a formula all day long. um and perhaps an even more student centered one that would be better but if they don't
065adequately fund the formula it doesn't matter what the formula is um you know so we want it to be not just a better system but also it's adequate funding is what we actually need and I just worry that by changing the formula we don't actually address the full problem which is that they're not adhering to their basic education obligation. So anyway have you all had that conversation? Um, we do have members who are interested in exploring new school funding formulas. I I think that there is there are people people in our membership that are interested in that. Um, I think we also agree if you put if you put money into the prototypical that might not not even be a question. Everybody would be served through that model. And um in some ways it feels
066a little bit like a red herring to say, "Oh, it's the formula that's wrong." Well, in fact, it's the fact that there hasn't been the dedicated resources into the formula. You could still end up with a perfectly great new formula and still not have it resourced at the level to make it what it should be. And um I mean, I think we're interested in that conversation. I think we also feel like we need more funding and more funding is separate from the mechanism. Um, and they're also tied. I mean, there Yeah, there's a there's a lot of which a lot of different ways I think to look at it. Yeah. Um, I guess we don't want to forsake the fact that we need more funding to fight for a formula that we think will bring
067more because I I don't see those two coming together. You can have a brand new formula, but if you don't stick the things in it that make it work the way we want it to, you're back at we just don't have adequate funding. Yeah. Yeah. That's been my ongoing concern. But I'll be sure to to um uh conjure up Dave Larson who's here in the room and is one of our strongest messengers about funding system that's not regressive, that is um student centered so that dollars are uh following the student, right? so that students are getting what they need. Um high poverty schools are actually getting more um to focus on what students needs are as opposed to less ultimately. So um that feels like the right argument and maybe a better place to start
068from in some ways. So all right, we could talk for hours, but it's 125. So it went by so fast. It did. Thanks. Thanks for having a coffee, Marissa. Thanks everybody.