For 20 years, various commissions and committees have been charged with finding a consistent and adequate way to pay for public education. Each resulted in failure.

“He asked me why I would agree to do this, as though he’d always thought I was smarter than that,” Grimm said of the former legislator.

Grimm is plenty smart. The 12-year member of the state House of Representatives from Puyallup had been chairman of the committee that wrote the state budget. He served as state treasurer from 1989 to 1997. He now does investor relations for a London-based private equity firm.

“Making wishes reality is always difficult,” he said.

Last year, the Washington Learns commission punted on the issue of how to pay for education, instead inserting the phrase “subject to appropriation” on 25 recommendations.

Before that, the 1991 statewide teachers strike ended with a deal to commission the Governor’s Council on Education Reform and Funding. The reform part resulted in a sweeping shift to a standards-based system that includes the Washington Assessment of Student Learning.

But that council was unable to bring together the factions – those who think we don’t spend enough and those who think we spend enough but spend it poorly.

Why is this time different?

For one, the 14-member Basic Education Funding Joint Task Force has some heavy hitters. Party leaders in the Senate appointed themselves, and the House sent influential pragmatists. Other members include state schools chief Terry Bergeson and the governor’s top policy adviser, Laurie Dolan.

And the charge is broad: Decide what constitutes basic education and how much that costs, and then develop a funding structure that is unique, stable and adequate. It might call for tax increases, it might not. (It also will look at some specific issues such as performance pay and extra pay for hard-to-recruit specialties.)

“You never know when the circumstances might be right where people are receptive to new ideas,” he said.

But there is no legal or political requirement for action, what he terms a “Sputnik Imperative,” in reference to the American investment in education after the Soviet Union launched the first satellite in 1957.

“We have an obligation to say, ‘here’s what the education system is to accomplish, and here’s how much it costs,’” Grimm said. “That ends our obligation.

“It would be wonderful if every kid passed the WASL, but that isn’t possible, he said. “It’s an opportunity, not a guarantee. I can’t carry you across the finish line.”

Grimm was a freshman legislator when lawmakers first defined basic education and sent out the money to pay for it. That was in response to a court decision that found the state wasn’t meeting its constitutional duties to provide adequate funding.

But back then, the Legislature sent out what it decided was enough money, and local school boards spent it mostly as they saw fit.

“What they produced was between them and the people in their district,” Grimm said.

Now, the state is far more prescriptive in how the dollars are spent, and local districts are answerable to the state and federal governments.

“The genie of state control is out of the bottle,” Grimm said. “The track we’re on is away from local control and toward state control.”

Grimm is realistic about chances for success.

“Even if nothing comes of it, it might be good to put a stake in the ground that would withstand scrutiny,” he said. “If you want a certain standard, this is what it would look like. If you are unwilling, these are the consequences.”

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics