It took King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick 100 pages to say what everyone has sensed for a long time. But when he says it, it carries a lot more weight.
“This court is left with no doubt that under the state’s current financing system the state is failing in its constitutional duty to make ample provision for the education of all children,” Erlick wrote in McCleary v. State of Washington.
It was the ruling that advocates for public education have been hoping for, and they celebrated. Politicians from the governor to candidates for the Legislature issued statements professing their love of education and commitment to its support.
You probably couldn’t tell from their comments that most of these politicians have had opportunities to follow the constitution and haven’t. They didn’t mention that they knew – or should have known – that each new program created and expanded would compete for dollars with what the constitution calls the state’s paramount duty.
And now, these same politicians who could have acted but didn’t have been given the task by Judge Erlick to fix things. That’s why this seemingly sweeping victory might end up being much less than that.
This skeptical view is enhanced by the frequent post-ruling claims that last year’s passage of House Bill 2261 means the state is already on its way to meeting Erlick’s test. That bill, which passed over the objections of the Washington Education Association and with the belated support of Gov. Chris Gregoire and legislative leadership, sets up a process to change the way schools are funded.
It was an important bill. But it also provided no additional money and set a distant deadline of 2018 to put new ways and means in place (though there is legislation pending to move up those deadlines).
Oddly, Erlick first cites HB 2261 as a positive step and then seems to doubt its effect.
The bill “represents a comprehensive, constitutionally permissive legislative effort to reform education and purports to address the alleged liability and requested remedy issues in this case,” he wrote. He then notes that it “does not require future (Legislatures) – or governors – to do anything. Rather, the legislation is the expressed intent of a current legislature as to what future legislatures should or might do.”
Legislators are good at intent. Erlick needled them a bit by pointing out that since the courts last said the state didn’t amply fund education there have been 17 school finance studies.
But the proof is always in the budget, and to increase funding lawmakers will need to do one of two things: increase revenue or shift money being spent on other programs. Both come with political risks.
And a lot of what needs to be done to reform education isn’t financial. The state didn’t receive a D-plus from the National Council of Teacher Quality because of a lack of funds but for a lack of backbone to train and keep good teachers and get rid of bad ones.
Erlick’s caution seemed driven by the current state Supreme Court’s deference to the Legislature.
“The Legislature must be afforded the opportunity to exercise its proper legislative authority to comply with (the constitution) and to fulfill the state’s paramount educational duty, as set forth in this decision.” Erlick wrote. “That said, the Legislature must proceed with real and measurable progress.”
And if it doesn’t?
The presumption is that the plaintiffs could return to court and ask Erlick to try something else. But all that is years away.
Steve Miller, a founder of the League of Education Voters, is more positive, so I’ll give him the last word. He thinks Erlick’s ruling can move the debate over school finance. He said he’s already noticed a change in tone by politicians who once denied that schools were short-funded but can now say, “Oh yeah, we knew that all along.”
“Politics is the art of the possible, and this moves the boundary of what’s possible,” Miller said.
Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657
peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com
blog.thenewstribune.com/politics
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.