By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
In an unusual and historically unprecedented outcome, Washington’s Supreme Court held the state in contempt for the legislature failing to provide a clear plan in funding public education by the school year 2017-18 pursuant to the McCleary ruling the court handed down in January of 2012.
According to documents the court in McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477, 269 P.3d 227 (2012) unanimously affirmed a declaratory judgment of the King County Superior Court finding that the state is not meeting its “paramount duty … to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders” under Article IX Section 1 of the state constitution. The court initially deferred to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its constitutional duty, but retained jurisdiction over the case to monitor the State’s progress in implementing by 2018 the reforms that the legislature had recently adopted. Pursuant to its retention of jurisdiction, the court has called for periodic reports from the State on its progress. Following the State’s first report in 2012, the court issued an order directing the State to lay out its plan “in sufficient detail to allow progress to be measured according to periodic benchmarks between then and 2014.
The legislature failed to meet the courts demands for production of evidence of progress by the legislature and the court then found the state in contempt. The issue has brought up certainly the notion of separation of powers, but the possibility of sanctions has many in the legislature motivated to now act.
The McCleary decision derives from a rather complex lawsuit against the state on behalf of the McCLeary family and others who initiated an action against the state for inadequate education provided to children and thus violating the constitutional requirement for the state to provide basic K-12 education as a paramount issue.
Article IX Section 1 of the Washington Constitution reads:
SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.
The court previously interpreted the preamble as being a core element of the constitution and not merely a formality. The history behind the case spans forty years. To digest, the Seattle School District suffered a great financial blow in 1972 when a double levy failed and the district was forced to take drastic action. The district sued the state for creating the conditions that required levies to fund basic operating expenses and shifting the burden to the local level. The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the district and the legislature enacted several bills that among other issues returned funding sources back to the state with a ten percent cap on financing derived from levies. As costs for this mounted, the legislature provided waivers to the ten percent cap and some districts then became reliant on levies for operating costs; some caps were raised to thirty percent or more. Over time these and other reasons began to degrade the quality of education within the state. While the legislature provided for studies that recommended clear directions as to how the state could restore education quality levels, it became increasingly unwilling to provide the necessary funding. The liability began to grow with time as revenue sources for the state dwindled.
One study estimated the biennial funding requirement to be between two and four billion dollars. The legislature did not sufficiently act with legislation to provide this funding which ultimately resulted in Supreme Court action in 2012 with McCleary where the court interpreted that the State fully fund K-12 education.
In the Contempt Order it reads In 2013 the legislative session, the Joint Select Committee on Article IX Litigation issued a report on which the Court found that the State was not making sufficient progress to be on target to fully fund education reforms by the 2017-18 school year. Reiterating that the State had to show through immediate and concrete action that it was making real and measurable progress, the court issued an order in January 2014 directing the state to submit by April 30, 2014 a “complete plan for fully implementing its program of basic education for each school year between now and the 2017-18 school year,” including a “phase-in schedule for funding each of the components of basic education.”
The heat began to be turned up on the legislature when the Court ordered in June that the State appear before the court and show cause why it should not be held in contempt for violating the January order and why that if contempt is found that sanction or other relief requested by the plaintiffs in the case should not be granted.
During the show cause hearing on September third, the State admitted that it did not comply with the January order, but instead to provide the legislature with time during the 2015 budget session to develop and enact a play for fully funding K-12 by 2018.
The court held the State, but truly the Legislature, in contempt for failing to follow the lawful orders of the court. A mild constitutional issue resulted where some in the Legislature stated the court had no authority to usurp the separation of powers and had overstepped its bounds and entered into the procedures and politics of legislation. But the Court rejected this and stated that it “fulfilled its constitutional role to determine whether the State is violating constitutional commands, and having held that it is, the court has issued orders within its authority directing the State to remedy its violation, deferring to the legislature to determine the details.”
The court unanimously found the state in contempt of the January order but delayed imposing sanctions until after the 2015 legislative session where it would reconvene and review if sanctions would be imposed.
Options available to the Court to sanction the legislature or achieve compliance have been discussed and it is not clear as to what the Court could order. There has been speculation that the Court could declare tax exemptions unconstitutional or void specific budgetary allocations to force, at least fiscally, a sign that funding will be available by the McCleary deadline.
This certainly is proving to be an uncharted journey the government of Washington might find itself.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
McCleary v. State
Washington State Constitution
Contempt Order, Supreme Court of Washington
Bellingham Herald
TVW
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Private institutions, private colleges, are free to take any endowments from any source and have any strings attached that they are willing to live with. These endowments and “strings” should be made public information so that prospective students and parents of students who will be footing the bill, can know just exactly what kind of whor……I mean bought and paid for………um principles that the institution has and an idea of the ideology that will be taught.
If you as a student or parent like the ideology and feel it beneficial then by all means….pay for the tuition and go to the school. If you feel it is objectionable…then find another school. The free market system should prevail in higher education, with NO government subsidies to put a heavy finger on the scales.
The same should be for public K-12 schools and parents should be free to send their child to the school where they will be the best fit and get the best education…..WITH the codicil that all K-12 students get at least a basic foundation and meet minimum standards in those foundation classes. In college you can fritter your life and money away to your heart’s content.
Interesting how Citizens United protects Unions’ speech as well as Corporate speech. Some of those unintended consequences again.
Oh that’s great news, docmadison. I guess what’s applauded by the Koch supporters should be also be applauded when Alinsky and Clinton do it, on the principal of endowments to universities and the great tax breaks alone. So those strings attached are always attached to an ideology, just to be very clear. Got it. Everything and everybody has a price it seems. Libertarians rejoice!
For the historically challenged, Saul Alinsky is still dead.
So who said he was alive? Paul you take things very literally, don’t you? It was used as an example Paulie.
The “overreach” of public education is egregious.
Exactly John
Refer back to my 11:51 comment. Ample provisions. What IS ample?. What is more than ample?
Public school k-12 should be doing a job of basic education. Reading, writing, composition, sciences, math, geography, history. Basic things that will prepare the student for life as a productive citizen. The over reach and “mission creep” is incredible.
As a result our students are poorly educated and often are just functionally illiterate. The schools should be held to a standard of production, just like any other business. The schools are to be for the benefit of the students and not for the benefit of the employees. Yes. You CAN do both at the same time and reward those good, productive, effective teachers. To do this you MUST MUST MUST get away from the Union model with is all about the teachers and NOT about the students.
Vouchers to charter and private schools are a great start to free the students from the useless and soul crushing experience of public school education.
I hear Hillary Clinton is giving $50M to the University of Wisconsin to endow a chair in the poli sci department.
And Saul Alinsky is funding a chair in the history department.
Just a few teeny, tiny suggestions as to the cirricula – but THINK of the tax savings.
The $10M gift to Boston College was from a very wealthy Arab-American who would appoint the chair of the economics and political science departments and have partial control over the hiring of tenured professors in those departments. Additionally, a mosque was to be built on the quad and the call to prayer broadcast over loudspeakers daily.
Oops. My bad.
The gift was from the Koch brothers. They don’t want to build a mosque. However, they are very interested in the economics and political science departments.
A question….how can one condemn politicians who are bought by our powerful wealthy oligarchs and not condemn the practice of the very same powerful and wealthy oligarchs who want to purchase our public educational institutions?
Boston College should be saluted for refusing the money. Instead, we have someone whining about his tax dollars. Well, I guess we know who is ready to “negotiate’ (see Bunny’s joke) around here.
I wonder if that is the hallmark of the Libertarian free-market system – everything is for sale – if it will lower my tax bill. What a set of values – eh?
The concept of “overreach” is a recurring theme on this site.
The “overreach” of public education is egregious.
Overreach on non-productive or antithetical curricula and assuming the parental obligation to feed and “babysit” their children.
Overreach on job actions and strikes that originated with workers engaged in exhausting and debilitating physical labor in conditions as poor as those of a mine shaft. Teachers have absolutely no concerns by comparison. Teachers have no legitimate rationale for strikes or “job actions.”The military is not allowed to strike or otherwise conduct “job actions” neither should any other governmental worker.
Overreach by “public school” most egregiously extends into the “deep pockets” of the taxpayers.
Elected officials must function in the realm of “public school” for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the greedy teachers unions. Elected officials and teachers unions ally to increase the wages and benefits of all governmental workers including elected officials. The money trickles upward.
Nowhere are contracts with “public school” workers promoted or even mentioned by Jefferson or in the original concept and design of taxpayer funded “public school.”
Union contracts must be voided and eliminated and strikers fired.
Efficiencies must be made to stop the “mission creep” and get the curricula back to the original, cost-effective reading, writing and ‘rithmetic.
Pull back the “overreach” of “public school.”
I am all for paying higher teacher salaries as long as it is based on performance and not union rates. Make it competitive, like every job should be.
Darren, maybe there are other questions that should be considered. Why is it that Washington State spends $10k per student or less, which is on a par with 23 other states, not enough? Do we spend too much in teacher salaries, other administrative costs, educating “illegals” from whose parents we don’t receive tax revenue, or…? I can’t imagine that any teacher would agree that we pay them too much or that they have manageable class sizes to deal with. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/current_spending.pdf
Ah the Gobbels foundation for ensuring the art of propaganda does not get lost…..
political liberal arts: definition attached
“learning to lie with a straight face, while ignoring the horrible impact of previous actions, in order to maintain political power.” See also: Joseph Goebbels.
http://the squeekydictionary.com/browse//liberal+political+arts
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
liberal arts: definition attached.
“the academic course of instruction at a college intended to provide general knowledge and comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, as opposed to professional or technical subjects. ”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal+arts
The term liberal is not a political term in this case. Not everything is politically motivated.
Thomas Jefferson demanded focused curricula and made no mention of golf, basketball, football, soccer, PE, music, basket weaving, breakfast, lunch, field trips, teachers union strikes or “comparable pay.” No “frills” and “bare bones” instruction on reading, writing, math and things pragmatic. He omits the pointless forays into the study of collectivism, “ethnic and sexual studies” or perversions thereof – save the indoctrination for the party headquarters.
Void all union contracts, eliminate the waste and inefficiencies that abound.
It’s the taxpayers’ way or the highway. FBO the taxpayer.
_______________________________________________________________
“The public education… we divide into three grades:
1. Primary schools, in which are taught reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to every infant of the State, male and female.
2. Intermediate schools, in which an education is given proper for artificers and the middle vocations of life; in grammar, for example, general history, logarithms, arithmetic, plane trigonometry, mensuration, the use of the globes, navigation, the mechanical principles, the elements of natural philosophy, and, as a preparation for the University, the Greek and Latin languages.
3. An University, in which these and all other useful sciences shall be taught in their highest degree; the expenses of these institutions are defrayed partly by the public, and partly by the individuals profiting of them.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:487
That’s a fallacy in words, a contradiction in terms…. Calling Hillsdale a liberal arts college….. About as far from liberal as you can get…. Unless you think Romney is too liberal….
So, someone does not know what ‘liberal arts’ means.
If I ran CUNY I would dock Brooklyn College $10 million and tell them to find another benefactor that meets their sanctimonious sensibilities.
Brooklyn College turned down $10 million dollars just this summer. Now, it’s a PUBLIC institution so they said to the taxpayers, we’ll just feed off the trough more, we don’t take those evil people’s money. How FREAKIN’ noble!
DBQ, I spend a lot of time w/ the homeless in San Diego. Many are veterans. Some you can build a relationship, some I just smile and maybe give some food, others I learn you just have to ignore. Just sayn’.
Paul, Yes. It’s a liberal arts college in Michigan.
@ Shelly
Thanks for the link.
The dissent here “In Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Washington Life and Disability Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 83 Wash.2d 523, 520 P.2d 162 (1974),” Is very interesting.
Note: I am not recommending Hillsdale as I know next to nothing about it. But merely pointing out that there are choices and that ALL institutions have an ideology. People can choose which ideology that they like by attending public or choosing among the private options.
And that there are always “strings attached” when you take money. Remember the joke. We know WHAT they are (if they take the money) it is just the price that is in negotiation.