Why this claim is misleading 

“Record funding” keeps schools treading water, not moving forward. State and federal dollars cover mandated costs and expired pandemic aid—but local levies fund the programs families actually see and rely on. “Record funding” does not mean “more money for classrooms.” Headline funding totals ignore enrollment trends, legal mandates, and the real costs school districts must absorb before a single new service is added.

​

Where increased state funding actually goes

Most increases in state funding are already spoken for, including:

• State-mandated salary increases (required to stay competitive and meet staffing needs)

• Special education shortfalls (still significantly underfunded by the state)

• Rising pension and healthcare costs

• Compliance and reporting mandates that increase administrative and staffing costs

These dollars largely maintain baseline operations—they do not expand programs or reduce class sizes.

​

Why local levies still matter

Local levy dollars fund what the state does not fully cover, including:

• Class size support and instructional aides

• Student safety, counseling, and mental-health services

• Transportation gaps not reimbursed by the state

• Technology, electives, arts, athletics, and extracurricular activities

Without local levies, these programs are the first to be reduced or eliminated.

​

Federal funding was temporary

Federal COVID-era ESSER funds:

• Were one-time dollars, not permanent revenue

• Are now fully expired

• Cannot be used for ongoing staffing or long-term programs

Districts across the country are facing “funding cliffs” as these dollars disappear—despite claims of “record funding.”

​​

Inflation hits schools harder than households

Standard inflation measures (CPI) understate school district cost pressures as there are state impacted factors such as: 

• Labor and benefits (the largest school expense) rise faster than CPI due to legislation

• Transportation, utilities, and insurance costs spike disproportionately at the demand of the state

• Special education services often grow at rates well above inflation

Schools are labor-intensive organizations—when wages, healthcare, and fuel rise faster than CPI, districts feel it immediately.

​

​Why the claim is misleading

This claim is misleading because special election timing is driven by levy expiration cycles set in law, not by district preference. Delaying a levy to a general election risks a funding gap that would force far more costly mid-year cuts to staff and programs than the cost of election administration. Special elections are standard practice across Washington and are used to align with school budget timelines, not to exclude voters. Every registered voter receives a ballot; turnout differences reflect voter participation choices, not restricted access.

​​​​​​

• Special election timing is dictated by levy expiration cycles, not preference. Schools Programs & Operations (SP&O) levies are time-limited by law. Placing a levy on a November ballot is not always legally or practically possible without risking a funding gap.

• A funding gap would cost far more than election administration. Missing a levy cycle would force mid-year staffing cuts, program eliminations, and contractual disruptions—far more expensive and harmful than election costs.

• Special elections are standard practice statewide. The majority of Washington school districts place levies on February or April ballots to align with budget planning timelines. But yes — turnout and cost differences exist, but they are due to differences in who else is on the ballot, not exclusion of voters.

• Voter eligibility is identical. Every registered voter in the district receives a ballot—no one is excluded. Turnout differences reflect voter choice, not access.

• Fiscal responsibility means avoiding disruption, not gambling on timing. Paying for a properly timed election is prudent compared to destabilizing classrooms and staffing.

Why the claim is misleading

• Washington law clearly defines levies as local voter-approved funding tools, not new taxes. This is a replacement levy, not an increase or expansion.

• No levy = an automatic budget cut. The levy replaces expiring funding already built into district operations—its absence reduces services.

• Terminology is legal, not rhetorical. “Replacement levy” is the statutory term used by the state, OSPI, and courts—not a messaging invention by HSD.

• Voters remain fully in control. If this were entitlement-based funding, it would not require voter approval at all.​

First: Is it possible this is true?

This claim may be technically true depending on which metrics are selected, but it relies on a narrow and selective framing designed to argue against the levy. What the claim fails to acknowledge is the broader context and several key factors that are not disclosed, including:

​

• Which year and which dataset they chose to review (district payroll roster vs. OSPI reporting vs. third-party sites)

• Whether they used base salary only or total reported pay (base + supplemental/extra-duty pay; sometimes benefits too)

• Whether they counted part-time staff annualized to a 1.0 FTE (a common reporting method)

Washington’s statewide personnel system explicitly includes people with supplemental-only contracts and uses FTE-based reporting rules.

​

So: the headline “over half” might be correct in a narrow, chosen framing but it does not provide a typical context or justify a “excess pay” argument. 

​

Why the claim is misleading

“Median local income” is usually household income, not a single salary. In Clark County, the Census reports median household income of $94,948 and per-capita income of $46,391 (both in 2023 dollars). Household income typically includes multiple earners, so comparing it to one person’s salary is and apples-to-oranges type of comparison.

​

“Over $100K” often reflects experience + education + extra duties, not “overpayment”. In education, it’s normal that veteran staff—especially those with 15–30 years and Master’s/doctoral credits reach higher salary lanes/steps. That’s how pay scales are designed: they reward retention and expertise, because replacing experienced staff is expensive and disruptive.

And “>$100K” can include extra-duty pay that are as you can imagine all levy funded, these include but are not limited to:

• Coaching

• Clubs/advising

• Curriculum work

• Extended time contracts

WA’s statewide reporting methods distinguish base vs. supplemental concepts and how salary is calculated per FTE.

​

Reality check: Hockinson’s teacher salary range already shows where “>$100K” comes from

In the state’s compiled collective bargaining agreement data, Hockinson’s (district 20) teacher salary range for 2023–24 is shown with:

• Min: $59,139

• Max: $110,406

• Avg supplemental pay: $2,939

That means:

• “>$100K” is mostly the top end of the schedule (experienced/educated staff), not the typical teacher and supplemental pay that exists and can push totals higher

​​

Market-based pay is regional (and Hockinson competes regionally)

Hockinson isn’t competing only with “Brush Prairie incomes.” It competes with neighboring districts across Southwest Washington (and the Portland metro labor market). Regional market comparisons and state frameworks guide compensation. Hockinson’s teacher and administrator salaries are comparable to, and in some cases lower than, those of neighboring districts and are set through state guidance and collective bargaining. Alignment with the regional market has helped stabilize staffing levels and reduce educator turnover compared to prior years when compensation lagged, which in turn lowers recurring recruitment and onboarding costs and preserves resources for instructional priorities.

​

If compensation falls behind, you risk:

• More vacancies

• Higher turnover

• Greater substitute reliance

• Less continuity for kids

Higher salaries at the top end often reflect retention success, not excess.

Many homeowners have seen higher tax bills, and that frustration is understandable—but those increases are driven by rising property values, not school levies. Levy rates are voter-approved and capped. Hockinson already provides audited, state-reviewed financial reports. Line-item pre-approval would cripple responsible budgeting, and without the levy, cuts to staff, programs, and class sizes are unavoidable.

​

Why the claim is misleading

The hard truth: without levy approval, transparency becomes irrelevant

If the levy fails:

• Cuts are mandatory, not optional

• Staff reductions are unavoidable

• Programs and staff are reduced by necessity

At that point, there is nothing left to “line-item debate.”  The outcomes are predetermined.

​

“54% higher taxes” is not a school-district number

When someone says property taxes are “up 54%,” they are usually referencing:

• Total property tax bills over time

• Driven by market appreciation, not levy increases

• Influenced by multiple taxing districts (fire, county, state, ports, etc.)

School levies are only one slice of the bill—and one of the most tightly regulated.

​

Levy rates do not rise automatically with home values

Key fact: School levies are voter-approved, dollar-capped.

• When property values rise, the levy rate per $1,000 of assessed value typically goes down, not up.

• The district cannot collect more than voters authorize, regardless of assessment growth.

It should be reminded that when assessed values rise sharply, levy rates trend downward or remain flat

Believe it or not this is exactly how Washington’s levy system is designed to work.

​​

Transparency already exists—and it’s extensive

Hockinson School District already provides:

• Public, audited annual financial statements

• State-reviewed budget documents

• Board-approved spending reports

• OSPI-required disclosures

These are:

• Publicly available

• Professionally audited

• Reviewed at the state level

This is real transparency, not a lack of it.

​

“Line-item pre-approval” is not how public budgeting works

Requiring voter approval for every future line item would:

• Make districts legally and operationally unworkable

• Prevent responses to:

  • Enrollment shifts

  • Staffing shortages

  • Emergencies

  • Safety needs

Public budgets are:

• Approved at a programmatic level

• Managed under state accounting rules

• Audited after the fact for compliance

​​​​

The hard truth: without the levy, transparency becomes irrelevant

If the levy fails:

• Cuts are mandatory, not optional

• Staff reductions are unavoidable

• Programs and staff are reduced by necessity

At that point, there is nothing left to “line-item debate.”
The outcomes are predetermined.

​

Bottom line: Rising home values ≠ the district “taking more.”

Flexibility is a necessity—not a red flag.