Law & Courts

Wash. State Lawmakers Face Hard Choices on K-12 Finance

By Jaclyn Zubrzycki — August 25, 2015 4 min read

Despite a $100,000 daily fine, it remained unclear as of late last week just how ready Washington state legislators are to develop a plan for education funding that will fulfill the dictates of the state’s constitution to the satisfaction of the state Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, that court ruled that the state must pay the monetary penalty each day that it does not come up with a plan that, among other goals, would reduce the state’s reliance on local taxes to pay for education, especially staff salaries, by 2018.

Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, has said he would convene a special session of the state’s legislature to vote on a plan before January, when the legislature’s 2016 session begins—but only if there was a consensus from its education leaders to develop a plan to present in that session.

“The state and our kids deserve an answer, they deserve a step forward, they deserve a plan that will solve this problem,” he told reporters last week.

Late last week, legislators from both parties planned to meet, but tension remained between legislators about the path forward.

“We have legislators who are talking about impeaching the supreme court rather than coming up with a plan,” said Sen. Christine Rolfes, a Democrat on the education committee. “The governor wants to know whether a majority of each caucus is on board with compliance rather than constitutional conflict.”

The funding dilemma will not impact the start of the school year in the state, which begins this month in many districts. And even if the legislature does not comply with the court order until its next session starts, it would owe just $15 million in sanctions, a small fraction of the state’s two-year $38 billion operating budget.

But education leaders say the unresolved issue has led to public frustration and leaves the state with a system that state schools Superintendent Randy Dorn describes as inequitable, with wealthier districts able to attract better teachers by paying higher salaries.

“It’s a civil rights issue,” Dorn said.

Ongoing Deadlock

It has been three years since the state’s Supreme Court ruled, in a case known as McCleary v. State of Washington, that the state was failing to meet what its constitution calls its “paramount” duty: to amply fund K-12 education. And it’s been a year since the court held the state in contempt for failing to develop a plan to pay for changes and failing to put in place plans lawmakers had already adopted.

State legislators made some progress in an extended legislative session earlier this year, adding $1.3 billion in education spending that went in part to pay for transportation and some reductions in class sizes.

But they came to an impasse over finding the money to reduce class sizes further and to assure that a smaller percentage of staff salaries come out of local budgets—changes Inslee says could cost an additional $3 billion every two years.

Democrats, Republicans, and the state education department each floated plans earlier this year to comply with the court’s order to craft a new funding plan, but all proved politically contentious. One Democratic plan would have added a capital gains tax for Washington residents. A Republican senator’s proposal would have increased the state’s common schools levy while lowering property taxes. State lawmakers also considered setting teacher salaries themselves, a plan that has drawn the criticism of the Washington Education Association.

Dorn proposed a plan that calls for changes to the local levy system and would give the state until 2021 to meet the court’s requirements. He said finding enough teachers and facilities to support smaller class sizes would take that long. Dorn said he was hopeful that legislators would at least start studying and working on a plan before the session starts again in January. “If they come in January, they’ll never get it done,” he said.

Will the Sanction Work?

In its August ruling, the state Supreme Court wrote that a “monetary sanction is appropriate to emphasize the cost to the children, indeed to all of the people of this state, for every day the State fails to adopt a full plan” by the end of the 2015 session. But, it said, the sanction is “less intrusive” than other possibilities, including determining a plan for school funding on behalf of the legislature.

The funds will be sent to an account reserved, broadly, for education. Such an account does not yet exist and would have to be created by the legislature. David Postman, a spokesman for Gov. Inslee, said that the state’s Office of Financial Management will be tracking the fines in the meantime.

The court’s action has triggered mixed reaction. State Sen. Matt Manweller, a Republican, said on Twitter that the court was “going rogue” and called for impeaching its justices. A conservative blogger described the battle between the judiciary and legislative branches as a “constitutional crisis.”

Meanwhile, Frank Ordway, the director of government relations for the League of Education Voters, an advocacy group in Washington state focused on education issues including school funding, said that the sanctions seemed more symbolic than anything else, given the size of the potential penalty in relation to the state’s overall budget.

Still, Alan Burke, the executive director of the Washington State School Directors’ Association, which represents local school boards, said association members are “cautiously optimistic” that the sanctions might push legislators to develop a plan sooner rather than later.

“Districts have been waiting a long time for an infusion of revenue from the McCleary case,” Burke said. “The court is making a statement to the legislature that this needs to get going.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.
A version of this article appeared in the August 26, 2015 edition of Education Week as Hard Choices Dog Washington State Lawmakers Over K-12 Aid

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
Classroom Technology Webinar
Educator-Driven EdTech Design: Help Shape the Future of Classroom Technology
Join us for a collaborative workshop where you will get a live demo of GoGuardian Teacher, including seamless new integrations with Google Classroom, and participate in an interactive design exercise building a feature based on
Content provided by GoGuardian
School & District Management Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table With Education Week: What Did We Learn About Schooling Models This Year?
After a year of living with the pandemic, what schooling models might we turn to as we look ahead to improve the student learning experience? Could year-round schooling be one of them? What about online
School & District Management Webinar What's Ahead for Hybrid Learning: Putting Best Practices in Motion
It’s safe to say hybrid learning—a mix of in-person and remote instruction that evolved quickly during the pandemic—is probably here to stay in K-12 education to some extent. That is the case even though increasing

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 How a Cheerleader's Snapchat Profanity Could Shape the Limits of Students' Free Speech
Brandi Levy's social media post is the basis for a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether schools may punish off-campus speech.
9 min read
Image of Brandi Levy.
Brandi Levy, now an 18-year-old college freshman, was a cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania when she made profane comments on Snapchat that are now at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case on student speech rights.
Danna Singer/Provided by the American Civil Liberties Union
Law & Courts Student School Board Members Flex Their Civic Muscle in Supreme Court Free-Speech Case
Current and former student school board members add their growing voices to a potentially precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case.
7 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Justice Department Memo Could Stoke State-Federal Fights Over Transgender Students' Rights
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, a Justice Department memo says.
3 min read
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D. on March 11, 2021.
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on allowing transgender girls and women to play in female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D.
Stephen Groves/AP
Law & Courts Diverse Array of Groups Back Student in Supreme Court Case on Off-Campus Speech
John and Mary Beth Tinker, central to the landmark speech case that bears their name, argue that even offensive speech merits protection.
5 min read
In this photo taken Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. Tinker was just 13 when she spoke out against the Vietnam War by wearing a black armband to her Iowa school in 1965. When the school suspended her, she took her free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Her message: Students should take action on issues important to them. "It's better for our whole society when kids have a voice," she says.
In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker shows a 1968 Associated Press photograph of her with her brother John Tinker displaying the armbands they had worn in school to protest the Vietnam War. (The peace symbols were added after the school protest). The Tinkers have filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a Pennsylvania student who was disciplined for an offensive message on Snapchat.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP