Supreme Court Hears Arguments to Lift State Sanctions, Threaten More Sanctions

The Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments today from attorneys representing the State and the McCleary plaintiffs to assess whether the State is on track to amply fund basic education for the more than one million students attending public schools, and whether a fine imposed in August 2015 should be lifted.

Following the briefs already submitted to the Court, attorney Alan Copsey for the State argued that billions of dollars had already been spent to comply, the Legislature had met every deadline, and the final piece of funding for compensation would come sometime during the 2017 regular or special session. Under questioning, Copsey said the current $100,000-a-day sanction had made a difference in executive and legislative action, and that Senate Bill 6195, which created a joint legislative task force, will result in a path forward for the 2017 legislature to follow. He also said specifically that the State was not asking the Court to rescind its jurisdiction over the case, but to lift the sanction because the Legislature will take action next year.

Copsey also said that what was different this time than with previous groups and reports was that the Legislature was getting the specific information it needed – the “missing information” on compensation – to put together the solution. He stated that the Legislature recognized it needed to solve the problem with its reliance on local levies and suggested that one option was to lower the levy limit locally and increase the state portion – the so-called “levy swap.” In response to a question from Justice Stephens, the author of the 2012 decision and a former Orchard Prairie school director, Copsey said lifting the levy lid would be only a temporary solution if the Legislature didn’t reach a decision by the end of the regular session, and that the burden for basic education funding was clearly on the State. Finally, Copsey said the “ample funding” date milestone should be the start of the 2018-19 school year, not January 2018 or fiscal year 2018.

Arguing for plaintiffs, Thomas Ahearne used a merry-go-round analogy several times to illustrate the circular nature of the State’s response and the lack of a plan, phased in over the years, to show how it was going to reach full funding. Ahearne lambasted the levy swap proposal as bringing no new revenue into a system that the Court has already said is underfunded, and said the State was ignoring the fact that activities such as transportation and MSOC – while meaningful progress had been made – are still not at the levels of funding of “actual cost.” Ahearne also said that the State should pick up the tab on school construction that is specifically tied to basic education programs such as full-day kindergarten and smaller K-3 class sizes. (In rebuttal, Copsey said school construction has never been part of basic education but the Legislature had appropriated billions for school construction over the years).

Unlike Copsey, Ahearne said he didn’t think the sanctions had made a difference, pointing to the fact that the Legislature hadn’t even set the penalty money aside in a separate account. He urged the justices to give the legislature a clear choice that if lawmakers failed to take significant action in 2017 that something else would happen. Frequently, Ahearne used language from the Court’s own decision and orders to remind them of what the State should be doing, and firmly rejected the idea that SB 6195 met the Court’s standard of a plan.

In his closing, Ahearne said the clock had run out on the McCleary children but it wasn’t too late for the Court to threaten serious action in the form of invalidating public schools statutes or tax breaks. It was time to get off the merry-go-round and actually go somewhere.

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 2776, satisfies 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 

WSPTA BOARD PRESIDENT STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT DECISION

Tacoma, WA (August 13, 2015): Washington state’s highest court issued an order sanctioning the state for failing to develop a plan to fully fund K-12 education per the court’s 2012 McCleary decision. The governor and lawmakers will meet Monday to begin addressing the court’s recent decision.

The Washington State Parent Teacher Association (WSPTA) President Barbara Martin, issued this statement today concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling on McCleary:

“Fully Funding McCleary is the WSPTA’s number one legislative priority and we are extremely pleased with the Supreme Court decision to ensure that fully funding education and holding the legislature responsible to comply with the constitution, is in the best interest of Washington’s children and will provide them with the best education possible.”

About Washington State PTA: The Washington State PTA was founded in 1905 by Abby Williams Hill of Tacoma, an artist who saw the need for an organization to support Washington's children. Thanks to her leadership and vision—and over 132,000 current members who have carried her vision forward—Washington State PTA has been a leading voice for children in Washington for more than 110 years. To learn more about the Washington State PTA, please visit www.wastatepta.org.

1304 S. Fawcett Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 214-7410

###