Sasha Elenko, Co-Content Editor
On Oct. 6, 2016, the Washington State Supreme Court case McCleary et al. v. State of Washington was refiled with the aim of speeding up the state legislature’s efforts to fully fund public education in Washington State.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2007 by the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools on behalf of the families of Matthew and Stephanie McCleary, and Robert and Patty Venema. They claimed that the Washington State legislature was not fulfilling its “paramount duty” to amply fund education under Article IV of the state Constitution.
After a favorable decision by the King County Superior Court in 2010, the case went to the state Supreme Court, and in 2012, the court ruled the legislature’s underfunding of public education to be unconstitutional and demanded that the legislature create a plan to fully fund education for the 2017-18 school year, setting a deadline of April 30, 2014. The court then established judicial oversight with regards to the process, and threatened to hold the legislature in contempt, should they fail to draft an adequate plan.
Between July 18, 2012, and Jan. 9, 2014, the court issued three orders to the legislature, directing them to make measurable progress towards the 2018 goal. After all three orders were ignored, the court summoned the legislature on Sept. 11, 2014 to defend why they should not be held in contempt.
The court decided unanimously that the legislature would be held in contempt, yet decided to postpone any substantial penalties in order to allow the legislature the freedom necessary to hammer out the necessary legislation.
According to Harvard Law Review, the practice of the judiciary enforcing mandates over the legislature does, in fact, contravene separation of powers; however, it is acceptable on occasion in states like Washington, where there exists a framework of cooperation between the judiciary and the legislature.
The most measurable progress came in the 2015-2017 biennial budget, when the legislature established methods for collecting data on which areas in public schools require the most funding. The court recognized the progress that had been made, but also pointed out major shortcomings in the budget, including significant lack of funding increases for hiring and retaining high-quality personnel in public schools.
On Aug. 13, 2015, as punishment for the legislature’s failure to comply, the court imposed a monetary sanction mandating that $100,000 per day be deposited by the legislature for the funding of public education.
With the 2018 deadline looming, Washington State taxpayers have much reason to be concerned.
“[If education is not receiving sufficient funds from the state, then school districts] must rely on local sources of funding, fundraising, grants, [and] fees,” said Executive Director of Business and Operations at Vashon Island School District (VISD) Matthew Sullivan. “In addition, if funding isn’t found… then classes can be cut, positions… eliminated, and ultimately the student [and] their education suffers.”
One of the most common ways to make up for a lack of state funding is through levies, which are essentially local property taxes used only towards funding education. The reason they are unpopular is that, under the state Constitution, families should be entitled to a public education based solely on the taxes they are already paying. Levies create an additional tax to account for the budgeting errors of the state legislature.
In fact, a significant portion of VISD funding is accounted for by levies.
“State funding accounts for roughly 63 percent of our revenue, with Federal dollars (grants) accounting for five percent, [and] Local Taxes and… donations accounting for 32 percent,” Sullivan said.
And while levies may be controversial as a necessity for funding public education, some school districts aren’t even able to raise funds through levies.
“We fare pretty well compared to other districts,” Sullivan said. “We have incredible local support, to which we are truly grateful.”
According to Sullivan, schools that cannot raise sufficient funds are not able to hire an adequate number of staff members may have poor-quality staff and high turnover rates and cannot replace aging facilities with newer ones, sometimes compromising student comfort and, in some cases, even risking their safety.
“With the new state biennial budget coming up, I hope they… do their constitutional duty and fully fund education,” said Sullivan.
The new budget for 2017 and 2018 is expected to be released in mid-December.