King County judge rules that state isn't providing ample money for schools

Linda Shaw, Seattle Times

A coalition of parents, school districts and teachers has won its argument in King County Superior Court that the state is not providing ample funding for public schools.

King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick presided over a two-month trial that started last September. The case is the biggest lawsuit over school financing in three decades, and most expect that however Erlick were to rule, it will be appealed.

PSE Blog posting
Judge Erlick's decision (72 pages -- click on McCleary v. State).
Statement by Supt. Randy Dorn.
Statement by Gov. Gregoire.

"I think this decision is just the beginning of the conversation," said University of Washington Associate Professor Marge Plecki, an expert in school finance issues.

The plaintiffs sued because they think the Legislature has failed to live up to its duty, under the state Constitution, to provide ample funding for public education, leaving districts struggling to fill the gap with local levies, grants and other means.

Washington's Constitution says the state has a "paramount duty" to make "ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders."

Few — if any — other states are charged with giving education such a high priority. However, Washington ranks 42nd in the nation in per-pupil spending.

The state's attorneys argued that the state is living up to its Constitution duty and that it's up to the Legislature, not the courts, to determine what's ample when it comes to education.

They also say that the lawsuit is moot because state lawmakers agreed last year to expand state support for public schools, and pledged to add more than $1 billion to the state education budget by 2018.

The plaintiffs, however, argued that's just one of many promises that the Legislature has yet to keep. They noted that the Legislature also made big cuts in school spending last year — the biggest in recent memory.

The case is one of a number of school-financing lawsuits across the nation in the past decade. The results have been mixed — with some courts ordering states to increase education spending, and some deciding that the level of education spending is lawmakers' call.

The decision comes at an interesting time, given the state's economic woes. The state is facing a budget shortfall of $2.6 billion.

The last big school finance case was filed by the Seattle School District along with about two dozen others in the 1970s. They argued they shouldn't have to rely on the uncertainty of passing local levies to fund education. In Seattle, voters had just turned down two property-tax levies, forcing the district to slash programs and lay off teachers.

The districts won. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Robert Doran, in a 1977 ruling later upheld by the state Supreme Court, agreed that the state was not living up to its constitutional duty and ordered lawmakers to define and fund a basic education for all students.

After Doran's ruling, reliance on local levies dropped from an average of 20 to 25 percent of their budgets to less than 10 percent. Local levies were supposed to be only for "extras." A second lawsuit a few years later expanded the state's definition of basic education to include areas such as special education and transportation.

Now levies in most districts are up to 20 percent again, and many of them say they rely on them to pay for essential services that state funds aren't enough to cover.