School Funding Decision Changes Budget Debate

But probably not this year. King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick's long (103 pages) analysis concluded that the state was not living up to its constitutional obligation to fund fully basic education. Here's the crux:

State funding is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable.  Local school districts continue to rely on local levies and other non-State resources to supplement state funding for a basic program of education.  Recent legislation addresses, but does not resolve, the perennial underfunding of basic education.  Accordingly, the State is directed to determine the cost of amply providing for basic education and a basic program of education for all children resident in the State of Washington.  The State must also comply with the Constitutional mandate to provide stable and dependable funding for such costs of basic education. 

He concludes with this:

The means of fulfilling this Constitutional mandate properly fall within the prerogative of the Legislature.

What that means exactly, I don't know. Erlick chose the Potter Stewart standard when it came to defining "ample." Or maybe an inverted Potter Stewart, more along the lines of "I know it when I don't see it." No one seems particularly surprised by the finding. The question now is whether or not it will be appealed to the state Supreme Court, which has seen more than its share of school funding cases over time.

Linda Shaw's Seattle Times reporting provides more context. 

"He left the remedy for whatever ails the system in the Legislature's hands, and we believe that's where it belongs," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Clark.

Clark also said it appears that the judge would allow the state to fulfill his order by carrying out plans in a bill passed last year — House Bill 2261 — which set 2018 as a deadline for a number of changes in how the state funds it schools. The bill also expanded the state's definition of what constitutes a "basic" education.

Key legislative leaders agree with the decision, as KING 5 reports.

"I absolutely agree with the court," said Rep. Ross Hunter, R-Medina.

The Chair of the Senate's Education Committee said the decision could help convince legislators, and the public, that more needs to be done to fund schools.

"That's really what we needed," said Senator Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, "We needed to be pushed by the courts to do that."

Sen. McAuliffe does not know if school funding reforms will require new taxes, but she said, "It provides us an opportunity to go out to the public and take the case to them."

The Columbian is out quickly with a good editorial. It's about setting priorities.

Now it’s up to the politicians to prioritize public education and meet the constitutional mandate without raising taxes.

We'll see how that works out.