| Washington
Recent News
| Useful Resources
Historical Background
In 1974 the Supreme Court of Washington upheld the
state's system of funding and operating the public schools
in Northshore School District v. Kinnear, 550
P.2d 178. However, only four years later, in Seattle
School District No. 1 v. State, 585 P.2d 71, the
same court ruled the state's school finance system unconstitutional.
Relying on the language of the state constitution, the
court concluded that "the constitution has created
a ‘duty’ that is supreme, preeminent or
dominant." Specifically, the court determined that
it was the duty of the state to provide an adequate
education to "equip our children for their role
as citizens and as potential competitors in today's
market as well as in the marketplace of ideas."
To accomplish this goal, the court required "sufficient
funds" from "dependable and regular tax sources."
In 1977, the legislature, responding to the lower
court's decision in Seattle School District,
passed the Basic Education Act, under which the state
assumed the responsibility for fully funding basic education
and substantially increased state funding.
A subsequent suit in the early 1980's, known as Seattle
II, led a trial court to conclude that the legislature
had underfinanced basic education in violation of the
state constitution. The court broadened the definition
of "basic education" to include special education,
bilingual, and remedial programs. The state did not
appeal the decision and the legislature revised the
Basic Education Act to include these programs.
Recent News
Federal Way
On November 20, 2006, the Federal Way
School District and a number of individual plaintiffs
in the district asked
a State Superior Court to declare Washington State’s
school funding system unconstitutional under the
state constitution, in Federal
Way School District v. State of Washington.
Alleging that the funding system is “arbitrary
and irrational” and that it “fails to amply
fund education in all school districts, including the
Federal Way School District,” the complaint describes
funding disparities that it claims are “not based
on any geographic, demographic, student population,
cost of living or other educationally relevant factor.”
On November 2, 2007, Judge Michael Heavey
held in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the State’s
method of providing salary funding was unconstitutional.
Judge Heavey found that schools received funding for
salaries “based upon a discredited and unconstitutionally
funded system of 30 years ago,” before concluding
that “[t]here is no rational reason to continue
this.” Disparities in State funding for salaries
were as great as $1,866 per teacher, $5,000 per classified
staff member, and $26,402 per administrator, according
to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
The Federal Way decision followed
a legislative session in which an additional $1 billion
in education funding was approved, including $48 million
intended to address the disparities in salary funding.
On November 12, 2009, the Washington Supreme Court held
that a “uniform system” requires uniform
educational content, teacher certification, instructional
hour requirements and a statewide assessment system,
but not uniform funding of staff salaries. Federal
Way School District, No. 210 v. State of Washington
The Court did not, however, decide whether Federal Way
or any other school districts were being denied “ample”
funds to provide appropriate educational opportunities
to its students as required by Art IX sec 1 of the state
constitution.
McCleary
On January 11, 2007, a broad group of
parents, organizations, coalitions, and school districts
filed an adequacy lawsuit, McCleary v. State,
arguing that the state fails to fund a basic education
for its children. Plaintiffs claim that the state’s
school funding system prevents Washington schools from
providing what is needed for learning, including reasonable
class sizes, adequate personnel, facilities and technology,
and programs such as music, art, and extracurricular
activities. Because resources, personnel and programs
are missing, the complaint asserts, many Washington
students drop out of school and are not prepared to
fulfill their responsibilities as citizens in a democracy
and to compete in the global economy. Plaintiffs argue
that the state’s current funding system is unconstitutional
because it does not fund the Basic Education Program
defined in Washington statutes.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to rule
that the state must “determine how much it will
actually cost to deliver the Constitutionally required
basic education to every child” and then fully
fund that cost “with stable, dependable, and regular
funding sources.” Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory
judgment from the King County Superior Court that the
state’s school funding system is unconstitutional.
On August 24, 2007, the court denied plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment.
In 2009, attorneys for the Network for Excellence Washington
Schools (NEWS)—a coalition of parents, the state’s
largest teachers’ union and 30 school districts—argued
in King County Superior Court that the state has failed
to meet its constitutional obligation to fully fund
schools.
Washington ranks 42nd in per-pupil spending and, according
to the plaintiffs in McCleary, et al. v. State of
Washington, the state’s contributions to
district budgets have failed to keep up with increasing
expenses. Attorneys for the state argue that the 2009
legislation which would increase funding by $1 billion
per year by 2018 renders the case moot. The trial ended
in mid-October, and Judge John P. Erlick issued a ruling
in favor of the plaintiffs in February 2010.
Acknowledging “the deep financial crisis that
the State currently faces,” the Superior Court
of the State of Washington, King County, nevertheless
held in a strongly worded 75 page decision that making
ample provision for the education of all children residing
in its border is the state’s “paramount
duty.” McCleary
v. State. The court held that the state’s
current state aid system is “not currently correlated
to what it actually costs to operate this State’s
public schools” and that the system, therefore,
is unconstitutional.
In his decision, Judge John P. Erlick reviewed in detail
the constitutional concept of “education,”
which he emphasized means “the basic knowledge
and skills needed to compete in today’s economy
and meaningfully participate in this State’s democracy.”
He explained that this constitutional concept encompasses
both the detailed substantive skills that the state
Supreme Court had described in its 1978 adequacy decision,
Seattle
Sch. Dist. no. 1 v. State, and the basic knowledge
and skills the State had articulated in its Basic Education
Act and in the Essential Academic Learning requirements
that have been adopted since that time.
The remedy the court ordered requires the legislature
to “ proceed with real and measurable progress
to,,, 1) establish the actual cost of amply providing
all Washington children with the education mandated
by this court’s interpretation of Article IX,
§1, and (2) to establish how the …State will
fully fund that actual cost with stable and dependable
State sources.”
Useful Resources:
Diane W. Cipollone, Defining
a "Basic Education": Equity and Adequacy Litigation
in the State of Washington (Campaign for Fiscal
Equity, Inc., December 1998)
Last updated: February 2010
|
