We need more money for schools!”

That’s a rallying cry that engenders two common reactions: The first is “right on.” The second is “stop whining.”

We need to get past gut reactions and learn the reality. The reality is that there are structural flaws in the way we fund schools. Some fixes will require more money, some fixes will require wiser use of money and some fixes will actually save money.

Our Legislature has become very effective at studying education funding, but not at fixing it.

For instance, on Nov. 2 King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey ruled that the state’s basic way of funding schools is unconstitutional because some districts benefit more than others.

That issue has been festering for 30 years. It was the elephant in the room, and nobody wanted to clean up after it. If the ruling stands, it will cost the state at least $400 million a year.

Winning on the equity issue was a big victory for districts like mine in Federal Way. But it is one of a labyrinth of problems in the education finance arena in this state. Some try to look at education funding from 20,000 feet, but we need to be at ground level to understand exactly why there is not enough money in our schools.

The ground-level problems relate to these core issues: the definition of basic education, transportation funding, special education funding, English as a second language funding, non-employee reimbursed costs and unfunded mandates.

By way of historical perspective, the state’s Basic Education Act of 1977 defined expectations and created a funding system to replace the system that had been ruled unconstitutional over 30 years ago. It assumed an education system that graduated students who simply had passing grades in a requisite number of classes.

Through the passage of HB 1209 (standards-based graduation requirements) in 1993 and the federal No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, that system is long gone for the better. However, the Legislature still thinks it can pay for this new system with old assumptions.

Basic education is not so basic anymore, and we need to update the definition. The state is paying for a 1977 Chevrolet, but we now want our schools to deliver a 2007 Cadillac. We are using a 1970s funding system to meet 21st-century expectations – including higher standards, technology that was not even contemplated in 1977, security costs unheard of in 1977, the hidden costs of higher immigration rates and many others.

Bottom line: The outdated definition of basic education coupled with higher expectations mean that the state is not providing “ample” funding for the expectations of today.

However, the expectations still exist, and the funding deficiencies created by those increased expectations are made up out of local levy money – money that is intended to pay for “enhancements” is now used to pay for basics.

Now consider aspects of our system that actually drain money from schools. These drains are unconstitutional in my opinion because they further dilute the funding the Legislature declared “ample” in the Basic Education Act of 1977.

The drains can be only summarized here. The Legislature’s own study sets the deficiency in transportation funding at $200 million a year. Special education students are expected to pass the same WASL requirements, yet the Legislature will not pay for the actual cost of bringing these children up to the same standard as everyone else.

Non-English speaking students are expected to pass the WASL, yet the state pays to get them to only a fraction of the English proficiency needed to get them there.

Finally, there’s the mother of all drains – unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is simply a requirement by the Legislature that results in expenditure of money without providing the money. A simple fix is to require the Legislature to pay for any new requirement that is not within the definition of basic education.

Imagine if you could require your neighbor to make improvements to his house without regard to cost. Would you require those same improvements if you had to pay for them yourself? I have a feeling we would save money, because there would be fewer superfluous requirements from the Legislature and we could simply focus on educating students.

The state’s founders made “ample provision” for education the “paramount duty” of the state because they knew two things: first, that public education is essential to a free society because it gives opportunity to everyone; and second, that legislators might see their own pet projects as more important than education. Both have proved to be true.

Judge Heavey’s ruling is a recognition that ignoring problems will not make them go away. We should all implore the Legislature to do the right thing and fix the problems in our education funding system.

If they don’t, at least we know that judges will.

Dave Larson, an attorney, is vice president of the Federal Way School Board. He won re-election Nov. 6.