Local Levies – Frequently Asked Questions

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

Across Washington state on April 23, many communities voted on local levies to continue funding for enrichment programs and capital projects at district schools. Here are frequently asked questions about those levies.

1. What is a local levy?

A local property tax passed by voters of a school district that generates revenue for the local school district. All money generated by school district levies goes directly to the school district to pay for enhancements to the state-funded basic education. By voting for a local levy, voters are voting for an additional property tax in their district.

2. How many school districts have a local school levy?

288 of the 295 school districts had a local levy in 2018.

3. What is basic education?

Basic education is the educational program that the state is responsible for funding.

  • The state legislature defines the program of basic education and is required by the constitution to amply fund it. The state defined program of basic education is the minimum that districts are required to provide students — districts may offer additional programming and services with local funds. Currently, the program of basic education includes the number of hours and days of school that districts must offer, academic standards, and specialized instruction for students qualifying for special education, English language support, and students below or above standard academically.
4. What is a levy rate?

A levy rate is the amount of property tax that voters approved to be assessed for every $1,000 of property value. A levy rate of $1.00 means that for every $1,000 of property value, the owner of the property will have to pay $1.00 in taxes.

  • E.g., If a homeowner has a house valued at $200,000 and the voters passed a levy at a $1.00 levy rate, that will cost the homeowner $200 annually in property taxes.
5. Why do districts generate different amounts of levy dollars for passing the same levy rates?

A levy rate of $1.00 in a district with an average property value of $200,000 will generate $200 per household in levy funding, but a district with a $1.00 levy rate and an average property value of $600,000 will generate $600 per household for the same level of property tax. Districts can have the same levy rate, but raise very different amounts of money because the average property value of a district varies widely across Washington.

6. What is the levy lid (cap) that started in January 2019?

The levy rate a district can pass is now capped at $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, or a levy rate that would generate $2,500 per student – whichever would result in a lower levy rate.

  • E.g., If a district can raise $2,500 per student with a levy rate of $0.80 per $1,000 then their levy lid is $0.80.
  • E.g., If a district with a levy rate of $1.50 generates $1,000 per student in levy revenues, their levy lid is $1.50.
7. What restrictions are placed on the use of levy money?

Levy money can’t be used to pay for basic education, but districts are otherwise free to spend the money as they wish. For example, by law, levy funds can’t be used to enhance state-funded base teacher salary for teachers performing basic education duties, but levy money may be used for hiring additional staff or paying teachers for additional duties, such as after-school programming.

  • Currently, a majority of levy dollars are spent on staff compensation. Many districts provide higher salaries for teachers through local contracts for additional time, responsibility, or incentives (TRI). However, many of the responsibilities within these contracts could be considered basic education duties, and often all teachers within a district receive this additional pay. Historically, this practice was common across the state because the state did not provide adequate salary to attract and retain teachers. The new state funding for teacher salaries is intended to address this issue.
  • Levy funds have also been used to supplement other areas of basic education that have been underfunded by the state. Currently, many districts indicate that they still need to use local levy dollars to provide special education services to students that are not fully funded by the state.
8. What impact are the changes in the local levies having on teacher salaries?

Historically, over half of levy funds have been used to supplement staff salaries. With the recent funding changes, state funding has increased substantially for most districts, while local levy funds have been reduced. The increase in state funding for teacher salary was intended to ensure the state was paying the cost of hiring teachers who provide basic education and to free up local levy money to enable districts to provide more educational supports and enrichments for students, which may also include additional staff.

The way districts deploy their levy resources hasn’t changed since the state increased funding, so districts continue to use significant levy resources to increase staff salary above state-funded levels. All additional salary and staffing, such as additional counselors, above state-funded levels must be paid for by districts. Many districts and local bargaining units negotiated salary increases in the fall of 2018 above the state-funded levels, however districts have fewer levy resources available to pay for these increases. So even though most districts had a net influx of education funding, their combined levy and state resources didn’t meet the added costs of the new contracts.

9. What is Local Effort Assistance (LEA)?

Because of differences in property values, some districts can pass a levy with a tax rate of $0.80 and raise $2,500 per student, while other districts can pass a tax rate of $1.50 and raise only $107 per student. To compensate for the difference in ability to raise money through local levies, the state supplements districts who are able to raise less than $1,500 per student with a max levy of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value by providing additional funding called Local Effort Assistance (LEA). LEA is funded to ease the property tax burden of districts with low property values. It is not funded in a way that makes equitable resources available to districts.

10. How do districts qualify to receive LEA funding?

Districts qualify for LEA if they satisfy the following conditions:

  1. The district would generate less than $1,500 per student with a levy rate of $1.50.
  2. Pass a local levy.

Note: Districts are not required to pass their maximum levy in order to receive LEA funding.

11. How much LEA support will eligible districts receive in 2019?

For LEA eligible districts, their combined local levy revenues and LEA funding are capped at $1,500 per student.

A district’s amount of LEA funding is determined by how close they come to passing their maximum allowable levy.

  • E.g., A district using 50% of their $1.50 levy authority by passing a levy rate of $0.75 would be able to receive 50% of their maximum LEA.
  • E.g., A district using 100% of their $1.50 levy authority by passing a levy rate of $1.50 would be able to receive 100% of their maximum LEA and generate $1,500 per student through combined local levy revenue and state assistance.
12. Can all districts generate the same amount of local levy funding?

LEA eligible districts are capped at generating a total of $1,500 per student in combined local levy and LEA funding. Districts that are able to raise more than $1,500 per student with a levy rate of $1.50 or less are able to, as long as they don’t exceed $2,500 per student in local levy funding.

  • 190 districts will be capped at $1,500 per student in combined levy and LEA revenues.
  • 63 districts will be able to raise between $1,501 and $2,499 per student in local levy funding, and won’t be eligible for LEA.
  • 42 districts will be able to raise $2,500 per student in local levy funding, and won’t be eligible for LEA.
13. How much were districts able to raise under the old levy system?

Under the levy system prior to 2019, 205 districts had a levy lid that was capped at an amount equal to 28% of combined state and federal funding amounts. 90 of the 295 school districts in Washington had levy lids ranging from 28.01% to 37.9%.

  • The average per student district levy was $2,329 in 2017 with district levy lids ranging from $1,600 to $8,000 per student. The disparity between district levy lids resulted from a combination of using district funding levels as the basis for levy lids, and the fact that some districts had levy lid percentages that were more than 30% higher than other districts.
14. Did the Supreme Court require Washington to reform the school levy system?

The Court said that the state must meet its paramount duty to fund basic education so districts don’t have to spend levy dollars to provide a basic education for their students. The Court did not require the state to make any changes or reforms to the current levy system, only that the state must pay for the full cost of basic education.

15. What is the ‘levy swap?’

The levy swap increased the amount of state funding directed at education. It increased the state property tax rate by $0.81 per $1,000 of assessed value, while making changes to the local levy lid that had the impact of decreasing the local tax rate for most districts. This also reduced the maximum amount districts can raise locally, beginning in 2019.

All districts saw a net property tax increase for calendar year 2018. This is because the state property tax increased while existing local levies stayed the same. When the new levy rules took effect in January 2019, the net tax impact on districts and net change in combined state and local funding will be determined by what levy rate districts pass for 2019 and beyond.

The levy swap increases the amount of state property tax collected for education and decreases the amount of local property tax collected by school districts.

16. What is the legislature working on to address some of the challenges districts are facing under the new levy system?

There are three legislative approaches to changing the levy system currently being discussed: (1) increasing the per-student levy lid of $2,500 per student, (2) increasing the maximum levy rate above $1.50/$1,000, but still keeping the $2,500 per-student total cap, (3) returning to a levy cap based on a district’s combined state and federal funding amounts.

Increasing the per-student levy lid of $2,500 per student. The levy rate a district can pass is now capped at $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value or a levy rate that would generate $2,500 per student, whichever would result in a lower levy rate.

  • Increasing the per-student levy lid would allow districts who can raise more than $2,500 per student with a levy rate of under $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value to raise more money per student. This would enable about 20% of districts to raise more levy money and have no impact on the rest of the districts.

Increasing the maximum levy tax rate. Increasing the maximum levy tax rate, currently $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, would enable the districts that can raise less than $2,500 per student with a maximum levy to raise more per student with their local levy while still needing to adhere to the $2,500 per student levy cap.

Switching to a levy lid based on a district’s combined state and federal funding amounts. Using a percentage of a district’s combined state and federal revenues to determine a district’s levy amount would recreate the same funding patterns and differences we previously saw in funding formulas in the levy system. Districts with higher property values would have access to more local levy dollars.

Currently, districts generate different levels of per-student funding with the most significant variable in per-student funding being regionalization factor, which provides increased state-funded salary amounts for districts with higher property values.

Read More

Student Voice: Self-Directed Learning Prepared Me for College

By Julian Sams
Guest Blogger

Summit Olympus Senior Julian Sams - League of Education VotersI didn’t have the most conventional childhood. As an Army brat, home was all over the country – from Nevada to Tennessee, and a bunch of places in between. Since I never spent more than a couple years at any school, I didn’t have a lot of guidance from my teachers. That all changed when we settled in Washington state my freshman year.

Unlike some of my friends, college had not been driven into my head from an early age – my parents did not have access to higher education – but they instilled in me a strong work ethic that’s led me to where I am today: ready to receive my high school diploma as part of the first graduating class of Summit Olympus, a public charter high school in Tacoma. Read More

Podcast – State Board of Education Executive Director Randy Spaulding

In our podcast, we interview policymakers, partners, and thought leaders to spotlight education policies, research, and practices so that together we can create a brighter future for every Washington student.

In this episode, League of Education Voters Communications Director Arik Korman asks Washington State Board of Education Executive Director Randy Spaulding how the State Board differs from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), how community voice was incorporated into the Board’s new strategic plan, and how he would design a state education system if there were no restrictions.

 

Listen:

Read More

Washington State Revenue Forecast Update

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

On March 20, Washington’s Economic and Revenue Forecast Council released their updated projections. The council expects the state to take in an additional $307 million in general fund revenue collections during the 2017-19 biennium than was projected when the biennial budget was adopted. Additionally, revenues are projected to be about $550 million higher for the general fund in the 2019-21 biennium than was previously projected. In total, an additional $850 million in expected to be available for the upcoming budget process than previously thought. Read More

Podcast – Highline College student Chalisa Thompson on the Umoja Black Scholars Program

Highline College student Chalisa Thompson - League of Education VotersIn our podcast, we interview policymakers, partners, and thought leaders to spotlight education policies, research, and practices so that together we can create a brighter future for every Washington student.

In this episode, League of Education Voters Communications Director Arik Korman asks Highline College student Chalisa Thompson how Highline’s Umoja Black Scholars Program has helped her, what went right and what went wrong in her educational journey, how she would change Washington’s education system, and how she envisions her future after she graduates.

 

Listen:

Visit our podcast page for more interviews

Read our 2019 Legislative Priority Issue Brief: Access to Postsecondary Opportunities Read More

2019 Legislative Priority: Access to Postsecondary Opportunities

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

We believe students come first. We are focused first and foremost on meeting the needs of every student.

We are dedicated to designing an equitable education system that serves all students based on their strengths, supports their needs, and provides the resources they need to be successful.

We are committed to working to close gaps experienced by historically and systemically underserved students— including students of color, students in poverty, students qualifying for special education services, students learning English, and students impacted by trauma. We believe this will lead to all students experiencing greater success and reaching their full potential.

PROBLEM

Postsecondary Education 2019 Legislative Priority Issue Brief - League of Education Voters18,000 State Need Grant eligible students attending Washington higher education institutions are not currently receiving a State Need Grant because the program has not been fully funded by the legislature.

OPPORTUNITY

The legislature established the State Need Grant (SNG) fifty years ago to increase access to higher education for low-income students. Although the SNG annually funds almost 70,000 students, the underfunding of SNG left 18,000 eligible low-income students unserved in each of the last seven years.

Over ten years ago, Washington established the College Bound Scholarship that provides financial aid to students from income-eligible families who sign a pledge in middle school that they will earn a GPA of 2.0 or higher in high school and have no felony convictions (1).

Both programs cover a portion of the cost of attendance leaving students to cover the rest of the costs via family contributions, loans, or jobs. As of 2012, the average SNG award covered 12% to 35% of the cost of attendance. On average, students cover between 14% and 28% of the cost through loans with the rest of the costs of attendance being paid through other types of aid or family and/or student-generated sources. Read More

2019 Legislative Priority: Expanded Learning Opportunities

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

We believe students come first. We are focused first and foremost on meeting the needs of every student.

We are dedicated to designing an equitable education system that serves all students based on their strengths, supports their needs, and provides the resources they need to be successful.

We are committed to working to close gaps experienced by historically and systemically underserved students— including students of color, students in poverty, students qualifying for special education services, students learning English, and students impacted by trauma. We believe this will lead to all students experiencing greater success and reaching their full potential.

WHY WE SUPPORT EXPANDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Students playing soccer - League of Education VotersExpanded learning opportunities – afterschool, weekend, or summer programming for school-age students – promote academic achievement, leadership skills, and involve youth in their communities. Unfortunately, youth from low income families get the least exposure to family reading time, weekend day trips, preschool, summer camp, and afterschool programming, compared to their peers from non-low income households (1). It adds up to a 6,000-hour learning gap by 6th grade – and only gets wider as they enter junior high and high school (2). This learning gap has an impact on school attendance and performance, as well as students’ opportunity to be fully prepared for college or career. Ability to access afterschool and summer school programs also impacts student safety, because the hours between 3 and 6pm are those in which youth are most susceptible to risky or adverse behaviors (3). Read More

2019 Legislative Priority: Supportive and Safe Schools

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

We believe students come first. We are focused first and foremost on meeting the needs of every student.

We are dedicated to designing an equitable education system that serves all students based on their strengths, supports their needs, and provides the resources they need to be successful.

We are committed to working to close gaps experienced by historically and systemically underserved students— including students of color, students in poverty, students qualifying for special education services, students learning English, and students impacted by trauma. We believe this will lead to all students experiencing greater success and reaching their full potential.

WHY STUDENT SUPPORTS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE ARE IMPORTANT

Middle school students - League of Education VotersStudents learn most effectively when their school feels safe, inclusive, supportive, and respectful (1). Creating positive school climates and providing student supports can mitigate the impact of trauma (2), mental health needs (3), and other non-academic factors that affect a student’s ability to engage in learning (4). It is instrumental in closing opportunity and achievement gaps in our system and improving student outcomes.

The creation of safe and supportive schools includes strategies such as Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), tiered systems of support, partnerships with families, partnerships with community-based organizations, and providing access to mental health services, among others. Between 50-80% of students in need of mental health services do not have access (5), and schools are likely the first point of access for many students that do seek services (6,7). School climate reform strategies have been shown to decrease school violence and bullying, increase academic achievement, and improve the school experience for students, staff, and families (8). The implementation of universal SEL programs have also been shown to result in significant academic gains (9,10) as well as a robust return on investment of $11 for every $1 spent (11). Read More

2019 Legislative Priority: Early Childhood Education – Home Visiting

By League of Education Voters Policy Team

We believe students come first. We are focused first and foremost on meeting the needs of every student.

We are dedicated to designing an equitable education system that serves all students based on their strengths, supports their needs, and provides the resources they need to be successful.

We are committed to working to close gaps experienced by historically and systemically underserved students— including students of color, students in poverty, students qualifying for special education services, students learning English, and students impacted by trauma. We believe this will lead to all students experiencing greater success and reaching their full potential.

WHY WE SUPPORT HOME VISITING

Preschool student - League of Education VotersIn 2018, our state had a 30-point kindergarten readiness gap between kindergarteners from low income families and their non-low income peers. Kindergarten readiness is one variable that supports kids to do well in elementary school and beyond, and the income-based opportunity gap means that children from low income households will have more work to reach grade level than their peers.

Home visiting – an early childhood education strategy in which a nurse or other professional coordinates services to families in their home – is an intervention proven by four decades of research to significantly improve kindergarten readiness for children born to low income families. Improved educational outcomes also include higher grade point averages (GPAs), higher language scores, higher achievement scores at age nine, and even higher high school graduation rates (1). Expanding high-quality home visiting programs in Washington state not only allows us to maximize our K-12 investments – it also helps parents provide the nurturing kids need at just the right point in their lives. Home visiting improves physical and mental health and development (2), and decreases the likelihood of abuse or neglect (3) while improving family economic self-sufficiency (4). Twenty years of academic research confirms that home visiting can change the trajectory of a child and their entire family. Read More