Addendum and Sources

What will it cost?

Cost estimates for an enhanced P–16 education continuum

The following pages provide additional information about our cost estimates for an enhanced P–16 education continuum.

Early Learning

The Early Start Act

  • Establishes a tiered reimbursement system for providers to incentivize high-quality early learning.
  • Provides resources for early learning providers to enhance the quality of their instruction.
  • Increases the slot reimbursement rate to enable providers to hire high-quality early learning instructors.

Early Start will cost approximately $50 million per year.

Improved access to high-quality preschool

  • Would increase the amount of funded slots through the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP), which provides low-income parents the option of enrolling their child in high-quality preschool.
  • Would provide funding for an additional 30,000 low-income children, beyond current phase-in plan, to enroll in preschool.
    • Eligibility would be expanded from the current eligibility threshold of families within 110% of the federal poverty level to allow families below 185% of the federal poverty level to participate in the program. (This is the same eligibility threshold as the Free and Reduced Price Meals program.)
    • Using expected participation rates of approximately 70% an estimated 30,000 more students would participate in ECEAP due to the change.

The cost per ECEAP slot will be $7,579. This program would cost approximately $227 million annually.

K–12 Education

Implementing Existing Law

  • The state needs an additional $174 million annually to achieve full-implementation of full-day kindergarten.
  • The state needs an additional $573 million annually to fully fund K–3 class-size reduction.
  • The state needs an additional $428 million annually to fully fund Materials, Supplies, and Operating Costs (MSOC).

Implementation Fund

A major cost to implementation is professional learning to help K–12 staff to adapt to the impending changes. If the state were to provide 10 days of professional learning a year, as proposed, that allocation could pay for the professional learning component of the Implementation Fund. Additional funds would still be needed to pay for the production of materials, hiring of consultants, or any additional non-professional learning related costs. 10 percent of state K–12 professional learning expenditures will be dedicated annually to the Implementation Fund to assist districts in implementing changes passed by the state legislature. This would cost approximately $20 million annually in support.

Teacher Compensation

In the Compensation Technical Work Group‘s 2012 report they determined that local school districts were using $780 million in local funds to supplement basic education employee salaries. The state does not provide adequate salary allocations to districts to enable them to pay a sufficient salary to hire and retain administrators, teachers, and support staff. Districts are then forced to use local levy money to make up for the lack of adequate salary allocations by the state.

  • To increase starting salary for the 2,200 new teachers that entered the workforce in 2013–14 from the current amount of $34,048 for beginning teachers to the $48,687 recommend in the Compensation Technical Working Group it would cost $32.2 million.

Professional Learning

The state should fund 10 days of professional learning for all state funded certificated instructional staff.

  • This proposal would cost approximately $200 million annually.
  • This would provide professional learning to classroom teachers, librarians, counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers.
  • Costs estimates were taken from the fiscal note for SB 6161 (2014).

Postsecondary education

Provides up to two-years of tuition support to low-income, recent high school graduates who attend a two- or four-year institution.

  • Students are eligible to receive tuition support equivalent to two-years of full-time tuition support.
  • Each community or technical college student will receive $4,467 per year. This includes tuition support and a $500 book allowance. (Same amount as College Bound Scholarship.)
  • Each student enrolled in a four-year institution will receive an average of $10,627. This will be enough to cover tuition and fees and a $500 book allowance.
  • The tuition support amount was determined by using a weighted average that took into account current State Need Grant postsecondary enrollment patterns and current College Bound Scholarship award amounts.
    • This is not a retroactive policy; this will go into effect for the first graduating class after passage.
    • This proposal would provide the full tuition cost and a book allowance for all eligible students. The cost estimates do not factor in a sliding scale. For purposes of cost estimates, all students who qualify would get the same award amount.
  • Assuming State Need Grant is fully funded, the cost to provide these financial aid enhancements would be an additional $127 million annually above the shortfall for State Need Grant.
    • State Need Grant is currently underfunded by $123 million annually.
    • The cost projections assume a 25 percent increase in postsecondary attendance for low-income, recent high school graduates, from 48 to 73 percent, while holding constant current higher education enrollment patterns.
    • The 73 percent postsecondary attendance rate is the same as the targets identified in the King County Road Map Project.
  • The current average unmet need for State Need Grant recipients is 23 percent of the cost of education. Further, the average State Need Grant recipient covers 18 percent of their educational costs through federal education loans.

The cost estimates for low-income students (below) assume all income-eligible students will receive the full award amount. Current State Need Grant policy has tiered support depending on family income. This proposal would eliminate the tiered system and make all qualifying students eligible for the full award amount. Additionally, State Need Grant awards are reduced depending on how much other aid, mainly Pell Grant, was received by the student. This calculation makes the current State Need Grant funding complete in the sense that all tuition is covered regardless of other financial aid sources.

Costs Assuming Full State Need Grant Support

Institution type New eligible low-income students per year Cost per annual cohort Annual cost at full implementation
Two-year 11930 $27 M $54 M
Four-year 7405 $36 M $73 M
Total 19335 $63 M $127 M

Investing in a Way Forward

$100 M Early Start
$227 M Expand ECEAP
$200 M Professional learning for teachers
$20 M Policy implementation fund
$780 M State-funded teacher compensation
$127 M Tuition and books for every low-income Washington high school graduate
TOTAL INVESTMENT
$1.45 B TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT PER YEAR
$2.91 B TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT PER BIENNIUM

Previous P–16 Commitment

$96 M Fully fund ECEAP
$174 M Full-day kindergarten (McCleary)
$573 M K–3 class-size reduction (McCleary)
$428 M Materials; Supplies; Operating Costs (McCleary)
$123 M Fully fund State Need Grant
TOTAL COMMITMENT
$1.39 B TOTAL PRIOR COMMITMENT PER YEAR
$2.79 B TOTAL PRIOR COMMITMENT PER BIENNIUM

Endnotes

  1. Roth Rothwell, Jonathan, “Housing Costs, Zoning, and Access to High Scoring Schools,” The Brookings Institute, April 2012, accessed December 15, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/4/19%20school%20
    inequality%20rothwell/0419_school_inequality_rothwell.pdf
    .
  2. National Institute for Early Education Research, The Economic Consequence of Early Childhood Education on the School System, 2006.
  3. Reynolds, A., J. Temple, D. Robertson, E. Mann, “Age 21 Cost Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Center Program,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24:4 (2002).
  4. The ECEAP expansion would make more children eligible to participate by increasing the income eligibility threshold from 110% of federal poverty to 185% of federal poverty. This estimate assumes a per ECEAP slot cost of $7,579 and an additional 30,000 students being served.
  5. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., Rowe, K., “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types,” Education Administration Quarterly, 44:5 (2008).
  6. Professional Educator Standards Board Annual Report, 2014, accessed December 15, 2014, http://data.pesb.wa.gov/retention/staying/new/survival.
  7. Goldhaber, D., Cowan, J., Excavating the Teacher Pipeline, Center for Education Data & Research, 2013.
  8. Professional Educator Standards Board Annual Report, 2014, accessed December 15, 2014, http://data.pesb.wa.gov/diversity/workforce.
  9. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, K–12 Data and Reports English Language Learners Data Tables, 2013, accessed December 15, 2014, http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/web/Washingtonweb/DataTables/EllDTViewer.aspx.
  10. Professional Educator Standards Board, “Endorsement by subject area,” 2014, accessed December 15, 2014, http://data.pesb.wa.gov/production/completion/endorsement.
  11. See generally “Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap.” See also Boykin, A. Wade, Pedro Noguera, C. Ellison, A. Boykin, K. Tyler, and M. Dillihunt, “Examining classroom learning preferences among elementary school students,” Social Behavior and Personality, 33:7 (2005), 669–708.
  12. Durlak, J.A., R.P. Weissberg, A.B. Dymnicki, R.D. Taylor, and K.B. Schellinger, “The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions,” Child Development, 82 (2011), 405–432.
  13. Hargrove, L., D. Godin, and B. Dodd, “College Outcomes Comparisons by AP and Non-AP High School Experiences,” College Board, 2008.
  14. Glazerman, Steven, et al, “Transfer Incentives for High-Performing Teachers,” Mathematica, November 2013.
  15. Hattie, John, “Visible Learning: Maximizing Impact on Learning,” Appendix C, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Benefit Cost Results, 2012
  16. “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018,” Georgetown University, 2010.
  17. Washington Roundtable, “Great Jobs within Our Reach,” March 2013.
  18. “A Skilled and Educated Workforce 2013 Update,” Washington Student Achievement Council and State Board for Community & Technical Colleges.
  19. Milken Institute, A Matter of Degrees: The Effect of Educational Attainment on Regional Economic Prosperity, 2013.
  20. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data: GDP & Personal Income, 2013.
  21. P–20W Data online dashboard, State of Washington Education Research & Data Center, accessed December 15, 2014, http://www.erdcdata.wa.gov/hefinance.aspx.
  22. Washington Student Achievement Council, “State Need Grant,” October 2014, accessed December 15, 2014, http://www.wsac.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2014.10.08.051.SNG.pdf.
  23. The BERC Group, “College Bound Scholarship Program,” December 2013, accessed December 15, 2014, http://www.collegespark.org/files/documents/CRI/College_Bound_Scholarship_Program_
    Research_Project_January_2014_FINAL.pdf
    .
  24. WSAC presentation to the College Bound Scholarship Program Work Group, June 2014, accessed December 15, 2014, http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/CBSPWG/Documents/
    2014-06-09/Rachel_SharpeWSAC.pdf.
  25. Calculation assumes a fully-funded State Need Grant program that reflects the same formula as the College Bound Scholarship Program. The state would cover the full costs of tuition plus a book allowance for all low-income and fostered high school graduates enrolling in postsecondary. Each State Need Grant student attending a community or technical college would receive $4,467 per year. This includes tuition support and a $500 book allowance. Each State Need Grant student enrolled in a four-year institution would receive an average of $10,627 for tuition and books.

Read more

Infographic: High-quality public education

Join us


En Español

Infografía: Educación pública de alta calidad