In Part 2, Dick Rylander and Larry Roe dig into the topic of mandates

Larry Roe and Dick Rylander 
for Clark County Today

This is Part 2 of a series. In Part 1, we looked at the issue of funding of public schools. In Part 3, we’ll dig into the legislative and RCW aspects. 

What are mandates? 

A mandate is a command or directive issued by an authority to individuals or organizations, requiring them to take specific actions or follow certain rules. Mandates can be issued by various types of authorities, including governments, organizations, or individuals with a position of power or influence. In the case of K-12 education in Washington state it is implementing laws and regulations as directed by the Legislature and/or state or federal agencies.  All of these mandates have a significant number of people who agree that they will improve our schools. 

However, none of the state government bodies, school districts, or associations appear to keep track of the financial impact of these mandates (see note 1).Revisions to the law (RCW changes) drive ever higher spending at all school districts.  The cycle is: implement RCW change, fund the change with local levy money whose use is flexibly defined (note that this reduces levy money for no enrichment) is taking place, demand that the legislature raise more money for the new definition of “basic” education, and repeat.   

What are “funded” mandates? 

These are programs defined with sufficient funding to pay the costs of implementation. The adequacy of funding is closely tied to the goals of the programs.  If the goals are achievable and the funding is adequate to employ staff, purchase materials, and serve the students, then the funding is considered adequate.  However, the federal or state agents demanding compliance may or may not have the same understanding as local school districts about the details of the goals and the real costs to achieve them. 

What are “underfunded” mandates? 

If a school district believes that they cannot accomplish a mandate without spending more money than the state provides, it becomes an “underfunded” mandate. 

These may be programs that cost more to implement than the government provides. This can occur for several reasons. (1) It costs more than the agency says it should. This ends up taking money out of the school district leading them to cut other programs to support the mandate. (2) The school district thinks they need more than is provided. A very specific example of this can be the Washington State financial support of positions based on a standard formula. Say for instance that the State says each school needs 0.5 nurses. A school district may believe that they need 1.0 nurses per school. (Or psychologists or counselors or other positions.) Perhaps Special Needs Children that a district says costs more than they are receiving. Every district in the State may differ in how many people and resources they believe they need to provide mandated services which leads to the difference in opinion. In the end, the district cuts other programs and/or asks local taxpayers for more money. Ask 10 districts which of their programs is underfunded and you’ll likely get 10 different answers. 

What are “unfunded” mandates 

These are programs that an agency or government entity says must be provided but fails to provide any funding. This leads to the local district (and thus taxpayers) to be responsible.  

Why does any of this make a difference and is important? 

1) School boards won’t stand up to say no to under or unfunded mandates because they fear the withholding of other funds as well as legal liability for the district. 

2) Unfunded mandates mean the local taxpayers are asked to foot the bill or a lobbying effort at the state or federal level is conducted. 

3) Underfunded mandates require local tax support in levies. This is the category that has the most gray area. The local perspectives can differ significantly from the State and Fed outlooks. 

In the end it’s important to understand that the government is NOT responsible for funding programs where the district interpretation drives the cost. Understanding this is important to voters and taxpayers so you can ask the right questions. 

Questions: Are DEI, Social Emotional programs, sexual education and other social programs mandated by the State or Feds? What if the Feds prohibit certain social programs but the State or District(s) choose to implement or continue those programs? Are they funded or unfunded? What are specific examples of unfunded mandates? What if a district wants programs that the State or Feds say can no longer be funded? This is complex and murky.  

---

Also read:

• 
  Debra KalzLetter: ‘It was a love fest for the City of Vancouver without a true global perspective on the real issues addressed’Debra Kalz
  Debra Kalz critiques Vancouver’s State of the City, citing debt, infrastructure, and homelessness.
• 
  Opinion: Should striking workers be paid by their employers not to work?
  Elizabeth New critiques SB 5041, warning it could expand strikes and burden Washington employers
• 
  Letter: ‘Our Vietnam and Vietnam-era veterans hold a place of honor in our community’
  J. Ron Powers honors Vietnam and Vietnam-era veterans in a heartfelt tribute.
• 
  Opinion: Should you fear the end of the Department of Education?
  David Boze of the Washington Policy Center weighs in on whether eliminating the U.S. Department of Education could benefit Washington education.
• 
  Opinion: Legislative leaders fail (again) to limit the abuse of emergency power in Washington state
  Washington Policy Center’s Paul Guppy says emergency power reform has stalled