Some of these ideas are not new. Some are, and certainly, the way I’ve put them together is new. Where did this idea come from? When plans for redefining basic education started surfacing, I remember looking at the plans... and in particular, at the associated costs... and having two thoughts: this is too expensive to fund in one chunk, and, this doesn’t even include the capital costs of building new schools!

Part of redefining education - but only part, certainly - is reducing the number of students in a given classroom. Some districts have unused classroom space, but most do not, so reducing class sizes means expanding your existing school, or building another. Either is expensive.

So I started scrutinizing existing K-12 funding. I knew basic education today is only partly funded by the state... with a fair chunk falling on the shoulders of local levies. Hmm. And those local levies were only four years, at most, so districts hold their collective breath every four years or so, hoping the funding doesn’t go away and that portion of their basic education funding disappear. Hmm again.

And then I began learning about the bonding capacity of the state, its constitutional limit of 9%, and an idea floated last year to use bonding to tear apart existing schools and make them more environmentally safe and friendly. All in the name of creating jobs - a noble pursuit, certainly - but not really helping with an impending space crunch. Hmm.

As I was crafting this plan, there were a handful of guiding principles I wanted to follow. Some were obvious, others were levers I used to revisit the plan and make sure it was as good as I could make it. I mined my conversations with fellow board directors who serve in different districts across the state, and tried to address their local concerns (I talked with a lot of other folks, too, and included their concerns as well).

Since I grew up in eastern Washington, I have a sense of life there, and how it can be different from life in Western Washington. I’ve tried to account for that difference when crafting this plan. I studied taxation and read studies about equity, elasticity, and history. And I adhered to some of my own beliefs, such as equity across the state, local control, and the unpleasant consequences of grandfathering.

Rather than explain each of these principles, though, I’ve decided to simply post them here, in case you happen to be interested. They aren’t necessarily in priority order, but that said, the first few are very important to me.

There are a few reasons I’ve called this The Iseminger Education Finance Plan. For starters, I think that if you believe in something, you should put your name on it. Stand behind it. Be open to feedback, but be willing to champion your ideas, even when you’re sure to face criticism and opposition.

Another important reason I’ve put my name on this plan: I hope doing so makes it harder for legislators to say education reform is too hard or too expensive, and walk away. Some legislators are strong supporters of education - others need more convincing. I’m sticking my neck out in presenting this plan; I think your local legislator should support it, or stick his neck out and come up with a better idea. Either is fine with me, but ignoring the problem is not. Don’t let him (or her) hide behind his caucus, his committee, or any other easy cover. I’ve worked hard to make this plan easy to understand, transparent, and fair. If your legislator is unclear, have him contact me... I’ll personally explain any part of it.

If you think this plan has merit, find out who your local legislators are and tell them to support it. If you don’t like my plan, contact your local legislators and tell them to come up with something better. Either way, take action.

And while you’re talking with your legislator, or sending her that email, ask what her vote on funding the future of education in our state will be... then let her know you’ll follow up on how she voted. That gets a great response.

I saw some presentations about how other states had increased education funding... some of the states being held up were not models of efficiency, nor academic success, in my mind. So I dug deeper, and found that the state in question had shifted levy authority to the state, but left local communities without the ability to contribute through voter-approved enhancements, to their own schools. That certainly didn’t settle well - I’m a strong supporter of local control. Note to self: don’t make their mistake.

I started breaking that big education funding requirement into chunks, as I call them, and started tackling them individually. Divide and conquer, as the saying goes. And from there, with some detailed modeling to show whether such a plan could work - a holistic plan, that must be taken as a whole rather than a menu of options - the modeling took shape after many iterations, proved possible. At that point my plan had taken shape. I’ve been honing it since, talking with folks to find its flaws and gather feedback, and to further polish and tighten its ideas.

The result is what you see on these pages - The Iseminger Education Finance Plan. Why call it that? A number of reasons, really. First, because I have no intention of laying blame anywhere else. I could hide behind some organization or committee if I wanted, or come up with an anonymous name like “The Levy-Shift Revenue Cordoning Plan,” or maybe “The Bonding plus Levy Reform and Revenue Increases Plan,” but none of those really stick. Besides, if you really dislike it, don’t you want someone to blame? That’s me. And if you think it’s compelling, and that it can work, you can thank the handful of people willing to spend time listening to my plan, poking holes where it was needed, and providing ideas for improvement. If you have rants about this plan, you can direct it to my department... but please consider sending ideas, too, for how we should implement and fund this education reform (or tell me why we don’t need it - I’m happy to have that debate that as well). I feel strongly that our students are our future... and their future is up to us.