LEV brought kids to the Washington Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the McCleary v. State lawsuit.
The court room in the Temple of Justice yesterday was filled to the brim, and then some. Lots of us brought children because this case is really about their future. Late comers had to watch the Supreme Court proceedings from a TV on folding chairs in the marbled lobby.
Watching the state defend itself in court yesterday in the big McCleary school funding case was… fascinating. It reminded me of when my son was a toddler and he emerged from his closet with chocolate all over his face, and said he hadn’t been eating the cookies that were keeping his clothes company.
The state used the same circular, flawed logic that we saw at trial. Basic education is what we say it is. We fund that definition, so everything is fine. Our formula says it costs $5, so here’s $5 dollars. It doesn’t matter that it actually costs $10.
The state’s lawyer repeatedly argued that local levies and other state non-basic education funding are backfilling “enhancements, like sports”, not basic education funding. “No basic education costs are borne by local school districts.” Come again? The reality is that local levies backfill basic education expenses that the state isn’t paying for, including teacher salaries, special education, curriculum, lights and heat, transportation, and more.
The state’s lawyer continues to use House Bill 2261 as a shield, and the NEWS attorney continues to trash the 2009 education reform legislation. In the meantime, policy makers appear to be shoving it under the rug. The governor still has a vacant Quality Education Council (QEC) appointment that she hasn’t filled. And the legislature literally cut back the number of days that the QEC is allowed to meet.
The 9 Supreme Court Justices were engaged and prepared. They peppered the lawyers with questions:
- Isn’t what the legislature did in this last biennial budget an issue?
- What about the reliance on local levies? Isn’t it unfair that some districts can pass levies and others can’t? Didn’t the legislature lift the levy lid?
- Why didn’t you challenge the constitutionality of the existing statues and funding formulas?
- What about 2261?
- Is your remedy practical?
What the court will actually do is up in the air. Justices tend to give other branches of government deference, but the record of the state’s underfunding of our public schools couldn’t be much stronger. And the language in our state’s constitutional could not be clearer. It is the state’s paramount duty to make ample provision for the education of all children.
Watch the arguments via TVW:
Learn more about the case:
Did you note the arguement from the State: Coville School District can spend basic ed money on their football team. Is that true?