Supreme Court oral arguments are usually the last place to go if you want to learn about the case being discussed.

No sooner have the lawyers opened their mouths than the justices begin to pepper them with questions, often not on the main points of the case.

But during arguments last week on Federal Way vs. State of Washington, Justice Debra Stephens boiled it down with a single question.

“We’re really talking about putting the entire system of education funding on the table, aren’t we?” Stephens asked.

“Yes,” responded Lester “Buzz” Porter, the lead attorney in the case that claims the state violates its constitution by giving different districts different amounts of money for schools.

Which makes it kind of a big deal, perhaps the biggest deal that most people have never heard of.

In November 2007, King County Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey said differential funding runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that the Legislature “provide for a general and uniform” system of public schools.

Heavey, a former legislator, said disparities would be allowed as long as there is a good reason. For example, a district with more English language learners could get more money to deal with that challenge. But he found no rational basis for the state’s system.

“The plaintiffs have shown beyond reasonable doubt that school districts are funded at disparate levels: that the disparate levels are based on a discredited and unconstitutionally funded system of 30 years ago. There is no rational reason to continue this,” Heavey wrote.

To cure the violation, the Legislature most likely would bring all districts up to the level of the best-funded districts. That could take about $400 million more a year over six years. The state now spends $6.5 billion a year for public education.

This case is not about adequacy of funding, though it is an undercurrent in the arguments. That issue comes next when a case known as McCleary goes to trial in August, with several billion dollars a year at stake.

Taken together, adverse decisions in the two lawsuits could force the Legislature not only to change how money is sent out but to increase the amounts significantly. Backers of House Bill 2261, passed this past session, argue it is the first step to resolving both issues.

The state is not conceding the Federal Way case, however. Its lawyers argue that funding is adequate for all. And while there are disparities in funding, they are getting smaller.

When the state lost the last big school funding case in 1977, there was a 154 percent difference between the best-funded districts and the least-funded districts.

That disparity has now fallen to 4.9 percent, senior assistant attorney general David Stolier told the court Thursday. (Porter noted in his time that 4.9 percent equates to $11 million less for Federal Way. “We don’t think that’s trivial at all.”)

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander noted that money is important because higher pay might help one district attract better teachers.

But Stolier said a district would have to show that the disparate funding caused some harm to some students. Federal Way, however, has higher test scores than districts that receive more money, Stolier said.

Which set up an odd standard: A district with lower funding levels wouldn’t have a legitimate constitutional claim as long as its students still manage to outscore higher-funded districts.

Stolier’s strongest argument was this: No system can be completely free of different funding levels, and it is a political decision – not a judicial one – to determine how to balance different demands.

“The trial court saw a need that needed fixing and didn’t trust the Legislature to fix it,” Stolier said. That resonated with some justices. Would they have to look over the Legislature’s shoulder each year to see if they are meeting the constitution? asked Justice James Johnson.

“No,” Porter said. “We want the court to tell them when they’re doing it wrong.”

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics