Lead plaintiff and NEWS leaders rejoice over court ruling
Stephanie McCleary and her two children had a literal front-row view of history on Thursday, listening to Judge John Erlick render a decision that they longed to hear. The State of Washington, the judge said in King County Superior Court, is "failing its constitutional duty" to provide a basic education for all public school students.
State funding for K-12 education is "not ample. It is not stable. It is not dependable," said Judge Erlick, who defined basic education as the Essential Academic Learning Requirements and other high standards set in place by the State. He concluded his ruling by directing the State to determine the "actual costs" of basic education and a stable and dependable means of paying for it.
The judge’s 17-minute oral ruling, coupled with his 73-page written decision, represented a grand slam for the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, the nonprofit organization that filed the suit along with the McCleary family of Jefferson County and the Venema family of Snohomish County. "The judge ruled in our favor on everything we asked for," said a jubilant Mike Blair, president of NEWS and superintendent of the Chimacum School District.
Judge Erlick noted that some 30 years had passed since the Washington Supreme Court, ruling in 1978 in a similar suit brought by the Seattle School District, directed the State to provide stable and dependable funding for basic education. "It's been 30 years," Blair said. "We need to address that. It's time for the State to act on that ruling."
The State had argued during the non-jury trial that HB 2261, the law passed last year that seeks to broaden the definition of basic education and provide new financing formulas, would address the concerns of NEWS. In his ruling, Judge Erlick said that 2261 is not the ultimate solution because it "doesn't require future legislators or governors to do anything" and lacks critical funding.
Rather than rely on 2261, the ruling should compel "every single elected official to look into the mirror and ask, 'Do I have the courage to do what the Constitution requires?'" said Tom Ahearne, lead attorney for NEWS.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Bill Clark expressed disappointment at the ruling but clung to the belief that 2261 is the answer, along with the work of various education funding task forces. "In Olympia, the blueprint is currently being established as far as determining what the cost of basic education is," Clark said. He said Judge Erlick's ruling might be simply an order for the State to "continue on that path."
Clark was noncommittal on whether or not the State would appeal, saying the ruling would first have to be studied by State officials. He also said he doubted that any legislative action on the ruling would be taken during the current legislative session. The money to pay for basic education would have to come from "regular and dependable tax sources," Clark said, because the judge said it could not come from local levies.
The ruling followed a 25-day trial that stretched over nearly eight weeks from the end of August through mid-October. One of the 28 witnesses who took the stand for NEWS was McCleary, who lives in Chimacum and was co-lead plaintiff with Patty Venema, a Snohomish mom. "I think it was worth it," McCleary said. "I wasn't fighting for nothing." Sitting next to her in court were her children, Kelsey, 16, and Carter, who will turn 11 on Saturday. Both children said they were proud of their mom and hoped the State takes action before they graduate.
Several other NEWS members expressed both support for the ruling and concern over foot-dragging in Olympia.
"Kids have won," said Linda Hanson, former president of the Washington State PTA. "As I've followed the work of the Legislature and all work groups related to education the past several years, it is clear to me that our kids have champions who want to do the right thing, all politics aside." She said the court has "lifted the legislative burden of tough decisions" by removing ambiguity and clearly stating what the State needs to do to correct the problem of inadequate K-12 funding. She echoed Ahearne in calling for lawmakers to "exercise courage to follow the oath they took (when the legislative session began) and to follow the Constitution."
"I was so relieved that the judge understood the big picture," said Christie Perkins, public policy chair for the Washington State Special Education Coalition. "People have been sidetracked by the small pieces."
"Our children can't wait," said James Kelly, president and CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle. "The Legislature needs to respond now."
The trial was the first major one dealing with K-12 funding since the 1978 Seattle School District case. NEWS sought a four-part remedy, starting with three key words in Article 9, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution ("It is the paramount duty of the state to provide ample funding for the education of all children..."). Ahearne argued that "paramount," "ample" and "all" mean precisely what they say and not merely "important," "barely enough" and "most." Judge Erlick agreed, ruling that each word "means what it says."
NEWS also wanted the judge to declare that basic education should be defined by three things: the State Supreme Court's ruling in the 1978 Seattle School District case; the minimum knowledge and skills set forth in HB 1209, the 1993 education reform bill; and Washington's Essential Academic Learning Requirements, known as EALRs. Judge Erlick agreed with that definition. "I was really pleased that he inserted 1209 into the ruling," Blair said. "That's substantive."
The judge also agreed with NEWS that the State had failed to comply with its constitutional duty to amply fund basic education. In his written decision, Judge Erlick said the State has "no discretion" in whether it will comply with its mandated duty and could not claim "that school districts can scrape by with non-State funds such as local levies." While the State has made "real progress" in complying with its legal duty, whether it has fully complied is a "yes-or-no question," he said, concluding that "the answer to that question is 'no.' "
The fourth request by NEWS asked the judge to order the State to determine both the actual costs of providing a basic education to all children and, just as important, a stable and dependable means to fund those costs. In doing so, Judge Erlick noted that over the past three decades, the State has never fully determined the real costs of operating public schools, even though it has conducted more than 100 K-12 education finance studies since 1990 alone. He wrote that the State's K-12 "funding formulas" are simply equations that do not correlate to actual costs. Despite legislation, studies and reports by the State, "there remains one harsh reality -- it has not and is not amply and fully funding basic education," the court said, with per-pupil State spending remaining essentially flat from 1994 to now when adjusted for inflation.
"Society will ultimately pay for these students," Judge Elrick said in his written ruling. "The State will pay for their education now or society will pay for them later through unemployment, welfare or incarceration."
The judge acknowledged "the deep financial crisis that the State currently faces." He said he would "not micromanage education" but leave it to the Legislature to determine what funding is necessary for all children to learn. "Without funding, reform legislation for basic education may be an empty promise," he said. "Absent a court mandate, the residents of this State, and their children, risk another 30 years of underfunding of basic education."
While HB 2261 "purports" to remedy the issues raised by NEWS, Judge Erlick said, the law is non-binding because it represents one legislature telling future legislatures only what they "should or might do." The judge said that the Legislature must have the opportunity to comply with his order for the State to fulfill its constitutional duty. "That said, the Legislature must proceed with real and measurable progress" in establishing the actual cost of basic education and the way to pay for it, he wrote.
While waiting for that to happen, Blair and NEWS supporters celebrated. "I think it was a great win for the state," he said, "and for the 1 million students in the state."