Lengthy Wash. Supr. Ct. opinion defers to legislature on education funding – for now

Seattle Times: High court: State isn’t fully funding education

McCleary v. State, No. 84362-7 (Wash. Jan. 5, 2012) (concurrence/dissent)

STEPHENS, J. — This case challenges the adequacy of state funding for K-12 education under article IX, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution. Unlike McCleary, et ux., et al. v. State of Washington, 84362-7 recent challenges to the State’s funding of education, which have focused on discrete aspects of school finance such as staff compensation1 and special education,2 this case concerns the overall funding adequacy of K-12 education. The only other time we have reviewed this type of challenge to school funding was more than 30 years ago in Seattle School District No. 1 v. State, 90 Wn.2d 476, 585 P.2d 71 (1978).

Now, as then, the factual and legal background of the case, and the necessity of adequately addressing the number of issues involved, cause this opinion to reach great length. We therefore summarize the central portions of our decision:

? The judiciary has the primary responsibility for interpreting article IX,
section 1 to give it meaning and legal effect.

? The legislature has the responsibility to augment the broad educational concepts under article IX, section 1 by providing the specific details of the constitutionally required “education.”

? Article IX, section 1 confers on children in Washington a positive constitutional right to an amply funded education.

? The word “education” under article IX, section 1 means the basic knowledge and skills needed to compete in today’s economy and meaningfully participate in this state’s democracy.

? The current substantive content of the requisite knowledge and skills for 1 Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. State, 167 Wn.2d 514, 219 P.3d 941 (2009). 2 Sch. Dists.’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State, 170 Wn.2d 599, 244 P.3d 1 (2010).

McCleary, et ux., et al. v. State of Washington, 84362-7 “education” comes from three sources: the broad educational concepts outlined in Seattle School District, the four learning goals in Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1209, 53d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1993), and the State’s essential academic learning requirements (EALRs).

? The “education” required under article IX, section 1 consists of the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and skills described in Seattle School District, ESHB 1209, and the EALRs. It does not reflect a right to a guaranteed educational outcome.

? The program of basic education is not etched in constitutional stone. The legislature has an obligation to review the basic education program as the needs of students and the demands of society evolve.

? The word “ample” in article IX, section 1 provides a broad constitutional guideline meaning fully, sufficient, and considerably more than just adequate.

? Ample funding for basic education must be accomplished by means of dependable and regular tax sources.

? The State has not complied with its article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington.

? The legislature recently enacted a promising reform package under ESHB 2261, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009), which if fully funded, will remedy deficiencies in the K-12 funding system.

? This court defers to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its McCleary, et ux., et al. v. State of Washington, 84362-7 article IX, section 1 duty but retains jurisdiction over the case to help facilitate progress in the State’s plan to fully implement the reforms by 2018.