And Another Gregoire Veto: Early Learning

By Josh Feit, Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
View Comments

Earlier today, Chris K. flagged the bad news for Metro: Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed  the portion of a local funding bill that authorized King County to send a car tab tax to voters, worth about $25 million, for bus service.

Gregoire vetoed a section of another bill today, as well: She vetoed the section of education reform bill that included “early learning” as a part of basic education.

Gregoire spokeswoman Laura Lockard explains that the governor thought, “the definition of early learning was too narrow because it was only for ‘children at risk’ and it should be for all children.”

I’ve got a call in to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Pat Sullivan (D-47), to get his reaction.

Meanwhile, Paola Maranan,  executive director of the Childrens Alliance said:

“We’re deeply disappointed that Governor Chris Gregoire vetoed the early learning section of the basic education bil. The Children’s Alliance is supportive of efforts to improve the K-12 system, and we know we will never realize the kind of achievement we hope for from our K-12 students if we fail to address the fact that low-income children and children of color are routinely denied the opportunity to enter kindergarten prepared to succeed. Legislators recognized the importance of helping kids who need it most get the opportunity to enter school ready to succeed. This was an opportunity lost.” 

The Children’s Alliance was one member of the active coalition of PTAers, the League of Education Voters, and the state superintendent’s office that lobbied hard for the bill. Members of the coalition were “caught off guard” by the Governor’s partial veto.

And, UPDATE, here’s a formal statement from Rep. Sullivan:

“While I am pleased with the sections of the education reform bill that were signed into law today, I cannot express enough how disappointed I am in the veto of the early learning section. We have let down children most at risk who need and deserve every opportunity to be successful in life.”

  • Ian
    What a bold vision for education. If we can't cover all the children we'll cover none of them!! Who cares if they are at-risk anyway? It's not like we have a gang problem in Seattle or Yakima.
  • Lauren@ChildrensAlliance
    Oops, here are the links:

    Rep. Ross Hunter's statement: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/members/hunter/200...

    League of Education Voters: http://blog.educationvoters.org/2009/05/19/a-hi...
  • Lauren@ChildrensAlliance
    @1: You are correct in saying that she expressed her concerns about the early learning component in a letter a while back. However, the letter, sent to House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senator Lisa Brown, showed her concern over the early learning component of basic education in terms of a funding source (see full leter here: http://www.partnership4learning.org/files/govle... ).

    Since then, advocates and supporters of the bill, including legislators, came together to add working group language to the bill around the program of early learning, meaning that there was still considerable work to do before a program of early learning was actually outlined the way systems already within K-12 were addressed in the bill. Once this working group language was established, advocates and legislators got the message from the Governor's office that she was OK with the early learning component of the bill and would support this new language.

    The shock came yesterday when, after a few weeks had passed (which was plenty of time for the Governor to communicate misgivings or second thoughts about the inclusion of early learning in the basic education reform bill), it turned out that the Governor was actually not prepared to sign the bill with the working group language that individuals had already believed to be generally "approved" (even if informally) by the Governor's office. Additionally, we are now told that the reason for her concerns around the inculsion of early learning in basic education is because the definition is "too narrow," which seems to be at odds with her earlier statements about funding.

    This was a somewhat wonkish description of the back-and-forth that occured while the bill was taking shape, but I believe it is important for people to know the different messages advocates recieved from the Governor's office in the process to understand why people are legitimately shocked after yesterday's veto.

    And the real disappointement now lies in the step backwards that Washington's kids are now faced with. Another great statement yesterday, expressing this disappointment, came from Rep. Hunter:

    And yet another response, from the League of Education Voters, that captures what this means for Washington's Children:


    Thank you, Publicola, for calling attention to this.
  • seabos84
    I went to an LEV dog and pony last night ...

    we the peee-on teachers NEED:

    - MORE people with BIG credentials pontificating,
    - MORE people with fancy titles emanating,
    - MORE bullshit ideas that NO ONE has paid for in any way, shape or form,
    - MORE power points and edu-babble.
    - MORE pretty brouchures showing caring loving people who care ...

    on the right we got the fascist masters and their lackeys, who are too dense to know they're lackeys, out to ruin ALL avenues of opportunity and freedom,

    and on the left we got the highly credentialed power point jockeys who couldn't run a f'ing hot dog stand.

    HELLO my lefty almost philosophical bunk mates - meetings are work and studies are work and power points are work ... and it is also work to carry rocks on your goddam head - NONE of it is useful.

    ugh.

    rmm.
  • Trevor
    Is this about money? She expressed her opposition to the early learning component months ago in a letter to advocates, yes?
blog comments powered by Disqus