This morning, King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick ruled that “state funding [for basic education] is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable.”
This is a HUGE victory for a million Washington school kids!
It’s been over two years since an impressive group of parents, school districts, unions, and community-based organizations filed suit against the state of Washington for its failure to make ample provision for the education of all children, pursuant to the Washington State Constitution.
At issue in this case is the nagging question that has been burning in school communities for decades. Is Washington State fulfilling its constitutional duty to amply provide for the education of all Washington students?
Eight weeks of trial, 28 witnesses, 300 + exhibits, and 70 bulging large three-ring binders later, Judge John Erlick has issued his ruling in McCleary vs. State of Washington. Here’s the conclusion from his opinion:
Thirty years have passed since our State Supreme Court directed the State to provide stable and dependable funding for basic education. The State has made progress toward this Constitutional obligation, but remains out of compliance. 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. Funding must be based as closely as reasonably practicable on the actual costs of providing such programs of basic education. The means of fulfilling this Constitutional mandate properly fall within the prerogative of the Legislature.
Is Judge Erlick’s ruling a final answer? Probably not. Most court watchers expect a case of this importance to end up in the Supreme Court. The appellate process would likely take another year or so.
In the past, court rulings have forced the State of Washington to step up to the school funding plate. Today’s ruling suggests that the Legislature is going to need to feel heat from other sources. With school funding levels at 43rd in the country, it is pretty clear that having the strongest constitutional language in the country is not helping the current generation of our school children. School districts all across Washington State are struggling to keep up their current services to kids and staffing levels, in the face of another wave of state budget cuts.
Therefore, it’s crucial that parents, educators and students continue to provide pressure on the Legislature. This session, besides protecting funding for education, advocates are also fighting to pass legislation that will make the state start complying with the judge’s ruling (House Bill 2776). The bill would begin implementation of the landmark education reform bill passed last year.
For more information:
- McCleary vs. State of Washington Opinion
- Seattle Times: King County judge rules that state isn’t providing ample money for schools
Was LEV a contributing member to the NEWS lawsuit? No and why not? Anyone who works in public schools in Washington State knows we are horribly underfunded and now the Courts have affirmed that fact. This lawsuit cost a huge amount of $ and LEV shouldn’t send out press releases and alerts to LEV members when you didn’t help win the case! It is never too late for LEV to give $ 40,000 to NEWS instead of riding the bandwagon. Words are cheap, while actions that help public school students cost time, effort, and lots of money!
LEV met with WEA lawyers and outside counsel early on and asked that the litigation include an early learning claim. We continue to believe that pre-kindergarten support for poor kids is critically important. The group that became NEWS decided not to include early learning and that is why the League of Education Voters did not sign on. I don’t believe that the community groups (i.e. PTA, Urban League, League of Women Voters) that joined the lawsuit were asked to help finance the litigation. LEV closely followed the trial and I sat in the courtroom as often as possible. And I was there today elated when Judge Erlick made his ruling. LEV has fought long and hard for revenue for our public schools at the state level (1-728, 1-884, simple majority, anti Eyman) and at local levels (many of us are leading our district levy campaigns right now)
I did not actually know that LEV stayed out of the lawsuit because of their stance on early learning. I commend that. I was happy with the ruling but felt that Judge Erlich was neglectful as his opinion did not conclude that this state is also out of compliance in terms of early learning. Section 168 stated:
“This court concludes that the word “all” in Article IX, §1 means what it says. It means “every” and “each and every one of”. It encompasses each and every child since each will be a member of, and participant in, this State’s democracy, society, and economy.”
The ruling even specifically cited the results of the Perry Preschool project as showing how quality early learning programs can positively effect a child’s education. Yet Judge Erlich seemed to ignore the fact that our current statutes specifically exclude children birth to five in terms of our Paramount duty.