Name: Dr. William Carter or “Doc” Carter

Occupation: Retired English/Language Arts Teacher

Relevant experience: AHS English/Language Arts Teacher, Speech/Debate Coach; numerous Aberdeen School District Board and Committees, Advanced Placement Consultant for The College Board; Part Time Instructor Grays Harbor College; Adjunct Professor, University of Washington; Peace Corps: Biology teacher, assisted in Science Curriculum Development

Civic involvement:

Boards: Daily World Advisory Board, Grays Harbor Health Department, Grays Harbor Foundation Scholarship Board, Elks #593, Aberdeen Friends of the Library, and Grays Harbor Retired Teachers Association.

1. What standards would you use to assess whether the Aberdeen School District is succeeding, and by those standards, how is it doing?

I would apply and assess the standards provided by the Washington State School Directors’ Association mandated standards. They include:

· Exercise positive influence;

· Operate as an effective and collaborative team;

· Insure the board is accountable and open to the public with divergent thinking;

· Promote healthy communication, support, inspiration, motivation and empowerment of others;

· Provide responsible school district governance in a fair, respectful and responsible manner;

· Respect and advocate mutual understanding between the board and the superintendent;

· Support continuous student achievement; and

· Further the principle that research based policy adoption supports that all students can achieve at high levels.

In my view and by those standards, the Aberdeen School District is succeeding.

2. In terms of priorities, what direction would you as a school board member, give to the superintendent?

No single school board member has the authority to tell anyone in the school district what to do. Authority rests only with the board as a whole rather than with individuals.

As a school board member, I would contribute to discussions and decisions, seek to be well informed, open minded and deliberative; actively participate in group membership, work within structure; and recognize/support the board role in policy making.

The superintendent is the person authorized by the board to carry out the will of the board and transform board policy into action. The board provides guidance to the superintendent and approves, disapproves or modifies her recommendations.

The school board should ask for periodic reports on programs and activities to ensure that its adopted policies are followed.

The school board establishes goals and priorities. The superintendent works with other staff members to draft a budget that meets board objectives, follows laws and regulations and stays within available district financial resources. The board approves the budget after a public hearing and the superintendent is responsible for operating within its limits and for seeking board approval of expenditures.

School boards serve as a link between public schools and the community they serve to share vision for improving student achievement; create conditions and direct resources for improvement; hold the system accountable for student achievement; communicate needs and progress of students to the community; and build public will to improve outcomes for all students in reaching the district’s student achievement goals.

Everyone in the community has a right to voice concerns: students, teachers, administrators, support staff, parents, and citizens who pay taxes to support schools. We should all: “Seek first to understand and then to be understood.” “If you do not understand the opposing point of view, you do not really even understand the argument.”

3. Collectively, the Legislature takes the position that its new funding methods satisfy a state Supreme Court order to adequately fund basic education. How do you see it?

We can have anything we want, we just cannot have everything we want. Funds are limited; priorities must be set for the best ways in which to spend available money.

In 2007, families, schools districts, teachers unions and others sued the state of Washington over school funding in the case known as McCleary vs. State of Washington. The McCleary plaintiffs argued that the state was not giving schools enough money, therefore local school districts needed to raise the rest through local property tax levies. They also argued that the needs of schools and students had changed over time but state funding had not kept up.

The McCleary plaintiffs took their arguments all the way to the state Supreme Court. In 2012, the majority of justices ruled in their favor. In its ruling, the state Supreme Court pointed to one sentence in the state constitution: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” That statement is evident: The state — not local school districts, not the federal government — needs to cover the costs of a basic education for Washington’s school children.

The state Supreme Court’s role is to enforce the constitution. What the constitution does not define, and what the justices do not have control over, is how the state defines what is included in a basic education. That is the job of lawmakers.

There has been much debate about the McCleary ruling because the Legislature cannot reach consensus on what a basic education includes. Why are we having a similar battle over education funding today? Part of the answer lies in levies.

Local property tax levies are only supposed to be used for extra needs such as extracurricular activities or extra class periods in high school. Districts have long asked voters to approve local levies, and then accessed levy funds when state support for costs like heat, school supplies, buses and teacher salaries fell short.

In 1977 the Legislature passed the Levy Lid Act, which placed a limit on how much school districts could raise through local levies. Those levies, which had made up about 24 percent of school funding, dropped to about 8 percent.

Over time, levies have started to creep up again. That is problematic as local levies create a divide between richer and poorer districts. Richer districts can more easily raise money from their taxpayers than poorer districts. That means some districts can fill in where the state falls short, and others cannot.

The constitution also says public schools in this state should have a reliable source of funding — and levies are not reliable because voters do not always approve them. School districts cannot always count on levy money.

Since the late 1970s, districts slowly have started to ask voters for more and more in levy funds — as costs continued to increase. The Legislature let this happen — and in fact passed several bills allowing school districts to exceed the 1977 levy lid. Local levies now make up roughly 25 percent of many district’s budgets — filling in gaps in the state’s support for costs like heating, teacher salaries, busing, books and copy paper.

It does not seem to be fair — but what choice do districts have?