Law & Courts

Legal Feud Over K-12 Aid Continues in Washington State

By Andrew Ujifusa — September 08, 2014 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Tensions continue in Washington state’s protracted legal battle over school funding, which has pitted the state’s highest court against the legislature for well over two years.

Neither side disputes that state lawmakers have failed to live up to the demands made by the Washington Supreme Court in its McCleary v. State of Washington ruling, which found the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to “make ample provision” to fund schools.

But it remains unclear whether any subsequent contempt finding by the court—or the threat of court-imposed budgetary penalties—would speed or hinder legislative action when the 2015 session gets underway.

At a contempt-of-court hearing last week, it appeared that the justices might have run out of patience with the state and were mulling specific sanctions over lawmakers’ inability to present a long-term plan to boost education spending to the court’s satisfaction.

And lawmakers are also wary of what they view as potentially unconstitutional power grabs by the court through such sanctions.

As of late last week, the court had not decided whether to hold the state in contempt.

Expressing frustration with lawmakers’ inaction, Justice Charles Wiggins asked state Deputy Solicitor General Alan Copsey, “What can we put into an order or say today that would encourage the legislature to actually deliver?”

Mr. Copsey told the justices that lawmakers understand the gravity of the situation, but should get the 2015 legislative session to solve the lingering, difficult problem of how they will pay for spending increases. The court would be harming that process, he argued, if it found lawmakers in contempt.

“There’s no disagreement that education needs to be more fully funded,” he said. “The question is, and has been, where will the money come from?”

Insufficient Progress

In its January 2012 McCleary ruling, the high court ordered lawmakers to dramatically increase their funding for schools, and gave them until 2018 to do so.

The state’s 2013-15 biennial budget—the first two-year budget approved since the McCleary ruling—added $982 million to K-12 spending. Plaintiffs, including districts and parents representing children in public schools, dispute that figure and claim that it was actually only a $649 million increase because of concurrent reductions to cost-of-living increases for school employees.

According to estimates based on legislation passed in 2009 and 2010 designed to fully fund schools, lawmakers might have to increase their education spending by an additional $3.5 billion to meet the funding commitment by 2018.

In the meantime, the high court has retained jurisdiction over the case. During periodic reviews since the 2012 ruling, the justices have been skeptical of legislators’ efforts to comply with the court order. For example, they said that the $982 million increase in the 2013-15 biennial budget represented only a 6.7 percent increase from the spending level the court found unconstitutional in 2012.

Twice the court has ordered the state to present a long-term plan showing how it will fund education at constitutional levels. But lawmakers, despite saying they will rely on the bills passed in 2009 and 2010, have not done so to the court’s satisfaction.

At last week’s hearing, Mr. Copsey said lawmakers’ struggles with education spending did not automatically mean the legislature had been “thumbing its nose” at the court. But Thomas Ahearne, an attorney for the McCleary plaintiffs, said that lawmakers’ continuing action should only lead the court to one conclusion.

“Call a spade a spade,” Mr. Ahearne told the court. “They’re in contempt. Don’t be afraid to say the word contempt.”

Mr. Ahearne said that the court should subsequently identify the sanctions it will impose on the legislature if they don’t present a plan for fully funding public schools by the end of this year.

In a June order, the justices outlined a list of potential sanctions if the state were to be found in contempt. They included ordering lawmakers to approve specified funding increases, prohibiting any state funding for an “unconstitutional education system,” and ordering the state to sell assets to use for its K-12 budget.

But state Rep. Chad Magendanz, a Republican and the ranking member on the House education committee, said after the hearing that the possibility of contempt charges and further sanctions represent a major distraction for legislators working on a compromise that would increase K-12 spending and make it more efficient.

“We don’t want to throw something out there because we’re in a hurry, because of pressure from the courts,” Mr. Magendanz said.

Changes to Tax Policy

At the hearing, Justice James Johnson asked Mr. Copsey what the state’s response would be if the court invalidated tax exemptions in the state’s budget, and allowed lawmakers to reapprove them only after significantly boosting K-12 spending.

Mr. Copsey replied that while it would be an “efficient” solution, it would violate the legislature’s power over taxation: “I’m not sure that it’s a constitutional remedy.”

Last week, Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said ending tax exemptions will be crucial to bolstering the state’s K-12 budget, the Associated Press reported.

Last month, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn urged the court in an amicus brief to use a “hammer” on lawmakers by blocking at least part of the state’s 2015-17 budget if lawmakers don’t make dramatically more progress in boosting K-12 spending during the 2015 legislative session. Five former governors, in a separate brief, also asked the court to give lawmakers until the 2015 session.

Mr. Dorn also said that if lawmakers don’t make significant progress in 2015, the McCleary plaintiffs should be allowed to petition the state’s highest court to block all nonessential state spending not directed at satisfying the ruling.

A version of this article appeared in the September 10, 2014 edition of Education Week as It’s Eyeball-to-Eyeball Over K-12 Funding in Washington State

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Curriculum Webinar
Strategies for Incorporating SEL into Curriculum
Empower students to thrive. Learn how to integrate powerful social-emotional learning (SEL) strategies into the classroom.
Content provided by Be GLAD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Case on Transgender Youth Medical Care May Impact Schools
The justices will decide whether a Tennessee law that bars certain treatments for transgender minors violates the equal-protection clause.
5 min read
FILE - The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington, June 20, 2019. In the coming days, the Supreme Court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case about a state law that bars certain medical care for transgender minors, with the legal issues holding potential implications for schools.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts Why the $4.5 Billion School E-Rate Program Is Headed to the Supreme Court
The justices will decide whether allegations of overcharging under the telecom-funded program may be brought under the False Claims Act.
6 min read
The Supreme Court building is seen on June 13, 2024, in Washington.
The Supreme Court building is seen on June 13, 2024, in Washington.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Law & Courts Title IX Rule to Protect LGBTQ+ Students Temporarily Blocked in 4 States
A federal judge in Louisiana delivered the first legal blow to the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX.
4 min read
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states are filing a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's newly expanded campus sexual assault rules, saying they overstep the president's authority and undermine the Title IX anti-discrimination law.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and health care stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states have filed a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's new Title IX rule, and one of them has just resulted in a temporary order blocking the rule in four states.
Patrick Orsagos/AP
Law & Courts Judge Strikes Down Title IX Guidance on LGBTQ+ Students. Here's Why It Matters
In a June 11 ruling, Texas judge said the Education Department has no authority to expand protections under Title IX.
8 min read
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017. His office sued the Biden administration in an attempt to invalidate guidance it released in June 2021 stating it would interpret Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tony Gutierrez/AP