Academics is less of a priority in our schools, and it shows

The Seattle Times editorial board recently highlighted the “confounding” relationship between Washington’s years of increased funding and the “mediocre performance of its public schools” [“WA has the wealth, but not the will, to fund schools equitably,” Nov. 10, Opinion]. I hope the editorial’s challenging questions invigorate a statewide conversation that I have been encouraging for some time.

While I agree with the assessment, some things may not be as confounding as they seem. After a decadeslong debate, our Supreme Court issued its McCleary decision in 2012, which the state eventually satisfied. The fix brought many changes to school funding in Washington. Ever since then, significant state and local funds have been flowing to our schools.

During the 2012-13 school year, Washington’s 295 school districts received $8,742 per student in state and local funding. For 2022-23, districts received approximately $15,462 per student. When federal funds are included, districts receive $17,200 per student on average. Updated figures for the 2023-24 school year will be even greater, yet students achieving state standards across grade levels is only 50.7% for English and 39.1% for math.

Considering recent funding increases, these test scores may initially seem confounding. However, there is something else occurring connecting increased funding to mediocre academics. Statewide school leaders and some legislators have succeeded in strategically and systematically redefining “education” to include everything. This approach not only requires much more funding, it diminishes academics as the top priority for schools.

By pushing preschool into our K-12 system, expanding to all-day meal programs, having schools deliver year-round child care, raising social and emotional support expectations, and promoting the co-location of health care services, it seems as if the state is trying to transition all societal services into our school system. Such an approach is not operationally realistic or financially sustainable.

A multitude of needs definitely exist within our school population, but the state should consider who could deliver services most efficiently. Meeting academic expectations, a once-fundamental responsibility of our schools, is now getting relegated to a lower priority within this much broader system.

Also, let’s speak candidly about graduation rates. This metric is no longer as helpful as it once was because as the state lowers academics as a priority (by making it just one of many school priorities), students may now be graduating from our K-12 system without the skills they truly need for their colleges or careers.

As for reforms in funding, Senate Republicans advocated for numerous changes back when we were negotiating a McCleary solution. Those ideas, if implemented then, likely would have resulted in meaningful improvements now. A missed opportunity for the state.

The fact that other Republican policy suggestions were rejected years later during the pandemic — including more in-person learning, adding instructional hours to the school year and using more federal funds for intensive tutoring — makes the current school struggles even more difficult to accept now. And just last legislative session, the state spent $3 billion more on K-12 education largely to fund the same system — just more generously.

While I am a strong supporter of education, we need to question the direction we are going. It is both reasonable and responsible to ask whether school districts should be the deliverer of all services, especially if they are struggling to fulfill their fundamental responsibility as academic institutions.

Frankly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate where school responsibilities end and where family and community responsibilities begin. This approach only prompts philosophical debate and encourages more parents to pull their children from public schools, which they have been doing in high numbers.

Despite the significant funding increases taxpayers have supported in recent years, the state will never ever “fully fund” this expansive social services model for schools. Perhaps that sets up a scenario that some statewide education leaders want, sort of like McCleary all over again. But rather than spending billions of dollars more each year for the same or lesser results, let’s ask ourselves whether we are on the right track.

Now is the time to question our approach and to re-prioritize academics as education’s top priority.