Thursday, July 14, 2016

McCleary Update: Supreme Court's July 14 Order

You may be aware that today the Supreme Court issued an Order in the McCleary case setting a hearing for September 7, 2016.  Click here for a copy of the four-page Order. 

The Court also set a briefing schedule. The State’s brief is due August 22. Plaintiffs’ answer is due August 29, and the State may file a reply by September 2. Requests to file amicus briefs are due by August 3.

If you haven’t seen or don’t want to read the full Order, below is an excerpt from the Order regarding the issues the Court expects the parties to address:

Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

  1. The parties are directed to appear before the court on September 7, 2016, where the State will be expected to provide specific and detailed answers to the following questions:
    1. whether the State views the 2018 deadline as referring to the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, to the end of the 2017-2018 fiscal year, to the end of 2018, or to some other date;
    2. whether E2SSB 6195, when read together with ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776satisfies this court's January 9, 2014, order for a plan and, if not, what opportunities, if any, remain for the legislature to provide the plan required by that January 9, 2014, order;
    3. the estimated current cost of full state funding of the program of basic education identified by ESHB 2261 (RCW 28A.150.220) and the implementation program established by SHB 2776, including, but not limited to, the costs of materials, supplies, and operating costs; transportation; and reduced class sizes for kindergarten through third grade and all-day kindergarten, with the costs of reduced class sizes and all-day kindergarten to include the estimated capital costs necessary to fully implement those components and the necessary level of staffing;
    4. the estimated cost of full state funding of competitive market-rate basic education staff salaries, including the costs of recruiting and retaining competent staff and professional development of instructional staff;
    5. the components of basic education, if any, the State has fully funded in light of the costs specified above;
    6. the components of basic education, including basic education staff salaries, the State has not yet fully funded in light of the costs specified above, the cost of achieving full state funding of the components that have not been fully funded by the deadline, and how the State intends to meet its constitutional obligation to implement its plan of basic education through dependable and regular revenue sources by that deadline;
    7. whether this court should dismiss the contempt order or continue sanctions; and
    8. any additional information that will demonstrate to the court how the State will fully comply with article IX, section 1