'It's a class war': Hundreds rally over Tacoma Public Schools budget, staff cuts
The Brief
Tacoma Public Schools is facing a $30 million budget shortfall, leading to non-renewal of 105 provisional contracts.
Critics argue budget cuts unfairly target low-paid workers, while high-paid officials remain unaffected.
The district says it's working to reassign displaced employees to other positions within Tacoma Public Schools.
TACOMA, Wash. - Hundreds of people came out to the "Support Our Students" rally and marched to the Tacoma Public Schools' Central Administration Building on Thursday.
The backstory
As Tacoma Public Schools faces a $30 million budget shortfall, the district released a statement on May 16 saying it notified 105 provisional certificated employees that their contracts were not renewed for the 2025-2026 school year.
"What we're seeing from Tacoma Public Schools isn't fiscal responsibility, it's a class war," said Connor Griswold, an Education Support Professional (ESP) within the district.
Critics at the rally say the district is balancing the budget on the backs of their lowest paid workers and that cuts need to be made at the top, calling out cabinet members making hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"ESPs are skipping meals to buy school supplies, teachers are working second jobs instead of doing curriculum management, students are losing bilingual staff because [Tacoma Public Schools] would rather protect six-figure consultants." said Griswold.
Rosalind Medina, Chief Financial Officer for Tacoma Public Schools, gave an update on the budget, saying the district is "dangerously" close to getting into binding conditions with OSPI and that these cuts were made to avoid that situation.
"We have been making contractive cuts over the last several years. We have run out of the easy stuff to make reductions to," said Medina.
Medina quickly apologized for describing the notifications as "easy stuff" but people who spoke out during public comment were not swayed by the update.
"Know that many of your staff, like the families we serve, got to get food banks and assistance just to keep the lights on to survive," said Gwen Lewandowski, an Education Support Professional. "If I work three jobs, pay my rent, raise a kid as a single mom and I can figure out my budget, y'all get paid to figure out yours."
Tacoma Public Schools says it is working with some displaced workers to fill other positions within the district.
The Source
Information in this story came from Tacoma Public Schools and original FOX 13 Seattle reporting and interviews.
Luxury Seattle hotel sues 'nuisance' building next door
Firefighters in western WA train for possibility of 'above average' wildfire season
Shawn Kemp lawyers claim bias in Tacoma Mall shooting case as trial nears
Federal judge blocks Trump's dismantling of the Department of Education
'Where is Teekah?': Mother speaks out after Tacoma, WA cold case
Activist marks 2 weeks in tree to protest logging near Port Angeles
Driver arrested after deadly crash in Kent, WA
To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter.
Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
MAGA lost in Huntington Beach. That means it can happen anywhere
These are such crazy times that when I found myself desperate to cover some good news amid deportations and Trump overreach, I visited … Huntington Beach?! MAGA-by-the-Sea? The Orange County city that once elected MMA legend Tito Ortiz to its governing body, which currently includes guys named Chad and Butch? Where Mayor Pat Burns presides over council meetings with a small white bust of Donald Trump in front of him? The coastal community that's been a hotbed of neo-Nazi activity for decades? Whose factory setting is whiny gringo rage? Whose former city attorney, Michael Gates, sued California to keep out of his hometown everything from sanctuary state policies to affordable housing mandates and is now a deputy U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights, which is like putting a butcher in charge of a vegan picnic? Can that Huntington Beach teach the rest of us a thing — or thirty — not just about how to stand up to despotism, but how to beat it back? Yep! Earlier this month, Surf City voters overwhelmingly passed two ballot initiatives addressing their libraries. Measure A nixed a parent review board, created by the City Council, that would have taken the power to select children's books away from librarians. Measure B barred the privatization of the city's library system, after the council had considered the idea. It was a resounding rebuke of H.B.'s conservatives, who had steamrolled over city politics for the past two and a half years and turned what was a 4-3 Democratic council majority three years ago into a 7-0 MAGA supermajority. Among the pet projects for the new guard was the library, which council members alleged was little better than a smut shop because the young adult section featured books about puberty and LGBTQ+ issues. Earlier this year, the council approved a plaque commemorating the library's 50th anniversary that will read, 'Magical. Alluring. Galvanizing. Adventurous.' MAGA. 'They went too far, too fast, and it's not what people signed up for,' said Oscar Rodriguez, an H.B. native. We were at a private residence near downtown H.B. that was hosting a victory party for the library measures. The line to get in stretched onto the sidewalk. A sign near the door proclaimed, 'Not All of Us in H.B. Wear Red Hats.' A banner on the balcony of the two-story home screamed, 'Protect Our Kids From Chad,' referring to City Councilmember Chad Williams, who bankrolled much-ridiculed 'Protect Children from Porn' signs against Measures A and B. 'Look, Huntington Beach is very conservative, very MAGA — always will be,' Rodriguez continued. We stood in the kitchen as people loaded their plates with salad and pizza. Canvas bags emblazoned with 'Protect HB' and the Huntington Beach Pier — the logo for the coalition that pushed for the measures — hung from many shoulders. 'But people of all politics were finally disgusted and did something together to stand up.' 'On election night, I was jumping up and down, because it was happening here,' said former Councilmember Natalie Moser, who lost her reelection bid last year and volunteered for Protect HB. 'It creates joy and enthusiasm, and I hope others can see what we did and take hope.' There was no chatter about the ICE raids that were terrorizing swaths of Southern California. A Spotify mix blared 'Don't Fear the Reaper,' AC/DC and the ever-annoying 'Hey, Soul Sister' by Train. The crowd of about 90 volunteers was mostly white and boomers. More than a few bore tans so dark that they were browner than me. We were in Huntington Beach, after all. And yet these were the folks that fueled Protect HB's successful campaign. They leaned on social media outreach, door knocking, rallies and a nonpartisan message stressing the common good that was the city library. Christine Padesky and Cindy Forsthoff staffed tables around the city in the lead-up to Election Day. 'Time and time again, I had people come up to me say, 'We're Republican, we're Christian, we voted for this council, but they've gone too far,'' Padesky said. Forsthoff, a Huntington Beach resident for 36 years, agreed. She had never participated in a political campaign before Measures A and B. 'When they [politicians] take such extreme steps, people will come,' she said. The bro-rock soundtrack faded out and the program began. 'My gosh, we did this!' exclaimed Protect HB co-chair Pat Goodman, who had been checking people in at the door just a few moments earlier. 'I don't think those neighbors know who we are,' cracked Protect HB co-chair Cathey Ryder, hinting at the uphill battle they faced in a city where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. 'Show them you're a supporter of good government.' She led everyone in the cheesy, liberty-minded chant that had inspired volunteers throughout the campaign. What do we want to do? Read! How do we want to read? Free! We were in Huntington Beach, after all. The speeches lasted no more than seven minutes total. The volunteers wanted to enjoy the brisk evening and gather around an outdoor fireplace to make S'mores and enjoy a beer or two. Besides, they deserved to revel in their accomplishment and discuss what was next — not just in Huntington Beach, but how to translate what happened there into a replicable lesson for others outside the city. The key, according to Dave Rynerson, is to accept political differences and remind everyone that what's happening in this country — whether on the Huntington Beach City Council or in the White House — isn't normal. 'As bad as things may seem, you can't give up,' the retired systems engineer said. 'You have to remind people this is our country, our lives, and we need to take care of it together.' Huntington Beach isn't going to turn into Berkeley anytime soon. It's one of the few California cities that has declared itself a nonsanctuary city and fully in support of Trump's immigration policies. The architect of MAGA's Huntington Beach takeover, Tony Strickland, was elected to the state senate earlier this year. His acolyte, Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark, plans to run for assembly next year. But feeling the happiness at the Protect HB dinner, even if just for an evening, was a much-needed balm at a time when it seems nothing can stop Trump. And meeting regular people like Greg and Carryl Hytopoulos should inspire anyone to get involved. Married for 50 years and Surf City residents for 44, they own a water pipeline protection service and had never bothered with city politics. But the council's censorious plans for the library made them 'outraged, and this was enough,' said Carryl. 'We needed to make an impact, and we couldn't just sit idly by.' They outfitted one of their work trucks with large poster boards in favor of Measures A and B and parked it around the city. More crucially, the couple, both Democrats, talked about the issue with their neighbors in Huntington Harbour, an exclusive neighborhood that Trump easily won in 2024. 'When we explained what were the stakes, they listened,' Greg said. Carryl smiled. 'There's a quiet majority that, when provoked, can rise up and save the day.'
USA Today
3 days ago
- USA Today
SCOTUS boosts effort to defund Planned Parenthood. It's a win for women's health.
I hope other states will now bar using tax dollars to pay for abortions and ban Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid. A new Supreme Court ruling could be the beginning of the end of Planned Parenthood's ability to receive Medicaid funding for abortions. In a 6-3 decision released June 26, the court ruled that patients can't bring a lawsuit challenging South Carolina's decision to halt Planned Parenthood's participation in the state's Medicaid program. The ruling is a win for the pro-life community, women's health and taxpayers. I can't stand the fact that Planned Parenthood has for decades received taxpayer dollars to perform abortions. I hope now, with the ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, that other states will act to end taxpayer subsidies of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has lost big time in this case, and it's long past time. As a pro-life mom, I'm glad Parenthood Parenthood lost tax dollars In 2018, South Carolina lawmakers enacted legislation that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for an abortion. Planned Parenthood subsequently was denied participation in the state's Medicaid program. State leaders argued that a "variety of other nongovernmental entities and governmental agencies' would continue to provide 'access to necessary medical care and important women's health and family planning services.' But patient Julie Edwards and Planned Parenthood sued the state, arguing that the organization's exclusion violated the "free choice of provider" clause of the Medicaid program. A strong majority of justices rejected that argument, clearing the way for not only South Carolina but also other states to cut off tax dollars for the nation's most prominent abortion provider. Planned Parenthood has been dependent on tax dollars Taxpayers should never have been forced to pay for abortions, but that's precisely what has happened for many years. In past years, about 40% of Planned Parenthood's budget − more than $500 billion a year − has come from Medicaid and other government sources. Apologists for Planned Parenthood claim that abortions are only a small percentage of the services the organization provides. Yet, Planned Parenthood's 2023 annual report, released last year, shows that it performed nearly 400,000 abortions in 2022. That was more than 60% of all the reported abortions in the United States that year. As a staunch pro-life mom, that makes me nauseous. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay to end a life. Women need health care, but Planned Parenthood should function without taxpayer subsidies. Thousands of other providers also are available to help women with medical care. I hope other states will now bar using tax dollars to pay for abortions and ban Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid. Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.
Vox
3 days ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's disastrous new abortion decision, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the Court's new attack on Medicaid, shakes hands with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images Federal law says that 'any individual eligible for medical assistance' from a state Medicaid program may obtain that care 'from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.' In other words, all Medicaid patients have a right to choose their doctor, as long as they choose a health provider competent enough to provide the care they seek. On Thursday, however, the Republican justices ruled, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, that Medicaid patients may not choose their health provider. And then they went much further. Thursday's decision radically reorders all of federal Medicaid law, rendering much of it unenforceable. Medina could prove to be one of the most consequential health care decisions of the last several years, and one of the deadliest, as it raises a cloud of doubt over countless laws requiring that certain people receive health coverage, as well as laws ensuring that they will receive a certain quality of care. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. All three of the Court's Democrats dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Medina is a trainwreck of legal reasoning. It's hard to think of a principled reason why, two years after the Court took a much more expansive approach to Medicaid law in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), the Republican justices abruptly decided to reverse course. It is easy, however, to see a political reason for the Medina decision. The plaintiff in Medina, after all, is Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider Republicans love to hate. Medina involved South Carolina's attempt to forbid Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health provider, a policy that violates federal law. In an apparent attempt to spite Planned Parenthood, the Republican justices have now effectively repealed that law. This is not aberrant behavior from this Court's Republican majority. Four years ago, before the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, the justices considered a Texas law which permitted private bounty hunters to sue abortion providers and collect bounties of at least $10,000 from them. The Texas law was an obvious attempt to cut off abortion rights in violation of Roe, but five of the Republican justices joined an opinion by Gorsuch, which held that this sort of law could not be challenged in federal court because, Gorsuch claimed, abortion providers must wait until after they are hauled into court by a bounty hunter to assert their rights. Medina fits within the same legal tradition. When a case involves abortion providers, the Court's Republican majority is frequently willing to twist the law into any shape necessary to ensure that the abortion providers lose. What was the specific legal issue in Medina? A federal law known as 'Section 1983' lets state officials be sued if they deprive someone of 'any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' This is arguably the most important civil rights law ever enacted by Congress. Without it, many federal laws and constitutional provisions would be unenforceable. Medina turns on Section 1983's reference to 'rights' protected by federal law. Past Supreme Court decisions establish that not all federal laws create a right that can be enforced under Section 1983 and so the Court has developed a set of rules to determine which laws do. Before Thursday's decision in Medina, the key case laying out this framework was Talevski. Talevski held that a federal law creates enforceable rights when it is ''phrased in terms of the persons benefited' and contains 'rights-creating,' individual-centric language with an 'unmistakable focus on the benefited class.'' Thus, before Thursday, the key question was whether a law's text focuses on the individuals who benefit. A hypothetical federal law which provides that 'no state may prevent a hungry person from eating at Taco Bell' would be enforceable, under Talevski, because this hypothetical law centers the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute stating that 'states shall not impede access to cheap burritos' would likely not be enforceable under Talevski, because it does not mention who is supposed to benefit from these burritos. Under Talevski, Medina is an easy case, and it should have ended in a 9-0 victory for Planned Parenthood. Here is the relevant statutory language from the Medina case: A State plan for medical assistance must … provide that … any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services. This law is full of the kind of 'individual-centric language' demanded by Talevski. It provides a right to 'any individual.' It provides that these individuals 'may obtain' care from their chosen provider. And it concludes with a pronoun ('him') which refers back to the individuals who benefit from this law. There is simply no way to reconcile Gorsuch's Medina opinion with Talevski. So how does Gorsuch try to get around Talevski? The Republican justices largely try to get around Talevski by ignoring it, or by misrepresenting what it said. Notably, the key words laying out Talevski's legal rule — that federal laws are enforceable through private lawsuits if they are 'phrased in terms of the persons benefited' — appear nowhere in Gorsuch's opinion. Instead, Gorsuch introduces some new principles into federal Medicaid law that are likely to confuse judges who must apply his decision to other provisions of the Medicaid statute. In its brief, for example, South Carolina suggested that a federal law must use the magic word 'right,' or it is unenforceable under Section 1983. Gorsuch's opinion doesn't go quite this far, but it does repeatedly point out that the provision of Medicaid law at issue in Talevski, which the Court held to be enforceable, uses this magic word in its text. Unlike Talevski, however, Medina does not articulate a clear legal rule which lower court judges can apply to other provisions of Medicaid law. It does not even explicitly overrule Talevski. Instead, Gorsuch mostly just points to some random features of the law at issue in Medina, and then leaves readers to guess how to determine which Medicaid laws are still enforceable. Gorsuch, for example, finds it quite significant that a different provision of federal Medicaid law allows states to exclude some providers who are convicted of a felony from their Medicaid program — a fact that is completely irrelevant under Talevski. He also notes that the provision at issue in Medina 'appears in a subsection titled 'Contents.'' It's hard to understand how this title is relevant. Moreover, this segment of Gorsuch's opinion appears to conflict with the explicit text of a federal law, which states that a provision of Medicaid law 'is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section…specifying the required contents of a State plan.' Gorsuch also includes an ominous line suggesting that, in the future, his Court will read Medicaid laws very narrowly: 'Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right,' Gorsuch claims, 'spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.' Thursday's decision, in other words, is likely to have sweeping implications for low-income Americans' health care, even if it was handed down solely to wound Planned Parenthood. Federal Medicaid law is riddled with provisions governing how states must operate their Medicaid programs, including requirements governing who must be covered, and rules governing patient safety. The Talevski case, for example, concerned a law which prohibits nursing homes from using psychotropic drugs 'for purposes of discipline or convenience' when they are 'not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms.' Under Medina, many of these laws may now be rendered unenforceable. It should be noted that, even under Gorsuch's decision, there is still one possible way to enforce the law permitting Medicaid patients to choose their health providers — the federal government could cut off some or all Medicaid funding to South Carolina. Realistically, however, this remedy would only make matters worse. It does not help Medicaid patients to take away their funding, and so the federal government has historically been exceedingly reluctant to use this blunderbuss of an enforcement mechanism.
