The Basic Education Bait-and-Switch

I had a chat with the Gemini AI at Google and asked it to go into “Expert Mode” and provide citations for it’s findings. Following is that report for your consideration.

The opposition narrative regarding school levies in Washington often centers on the tension between Washington state’s “Paramount Duty” to fund basic education and the local districts’ use of enrichment funds to fill structural gaps.

The following narrative outlines the arguments used by fiscal conservatives, taxpayer advocates, and legal critics to suggest that districts are bypassing the spirit—and sometimes the letter—of the law.

The core of the opposition argument is that school districts use Enrichment Levies as a “slush fund” to cover core operational costs that the state already provides for, or to bypass state-mandated spending caps.

1. The “Supplemental Contract” Salary Loophole: Under RCW 28A.400.200, districts are prohibited from using levy funds to pay for basic education salaries. However, critics argue districts circumvent this by using “Time, Responsibility, and Incentive” (TRI) contracts.

• The Narrative: Districts claim levy money pays for “extra” work, but in practice, it is used to inflate base salaries to satisfy union demands. This effectively uses local taxes to pay for the “basic” act of teaching, which the McCleary decision explicitly forbade.
• Legal Tension: The Freedom Foundation has argued that these contracts are often “gifts of public funds” when the “extra duties” performed are indistinguishable from a teacher’s standard job description.

2. Redefining “Basic” as “Enrichment”

• The law defines “Basic Education” (funded by the state) versus “Enrichment” (funded by levies). Opposition groups argue districts intentionally blur this line to create a sense of crisis.
• The Narrative: Districts tell voters that without a levy, they will lose “basic” safety or health services (like nurses or security). However, if these services are truly essential for a safe learning environment, the Washington State Constitution (Art. IX) dictates the state must pay for them.
• The Argument: By using levy funds for these positions, districts allow the state to “shirk its duty,” while simultaneously “holding students hostage” to pass local tax increases for services that should already be guaranteed.

3. The “Phony Emergency” Strategy

• Organizations like the Washington Policy Center have critiqued districts for describing levy renewals as “not a new tax” even when the total dollar amount collected increases significantly due to rising property valuations.
• The Narrative: Districts often use “scare tactics,” claiming massive cuts to core programs (like the $20 million projected shortfall in Battle Ground) to pressure voters. Critics argue these shortfalls are often the result of administrative bloat—pointing to data showing that K-12 spending has doubled in 10 years, with a disproportionate amount going to non-teaching administrators rather than the classroom.

4. Bypassing the “Levy Lid” via Capital Funds

• When a district hits its legal cap for operational levies (EP&O), they may shift operational costs into Capital or Technology Levies, which have higher or different limits.
• The Narrative: A district might buy 1-to-1 laptops or hire IT staff through a “Technology Levy.” While legal, this frees up their General Fund to spend more on salaries than the “Levy Lid” would otherwise allow. Critics view this as a shell game designed to extract more total revenue from taxpayers than the state’s equity-focused caps intended.

Sources Supporting the Opposition Perspective

• Washington Policy Center | Evidence of administrative bloat and misleading “no new tax” claims. | WPC Annual Report |

• Freedom Foundation | Analysis of how unions push districts to “cannibalize” services for wage hikes. | Labor Policy Analysis |

• State Auditor (SAO) | Reports on districts failing to follow enrichment expenditure pre- approval laws.

• WA Constitution Art. IX | The “Paramount Duty” clause used to argue against local funding of core needs. | WA Constitution |

This article was influenced by asking the Gemini AI to operate in “Expect Mode” and to cite sources for the conclusions.