In Part 2 of a two-part series, Dick Rylander and Larry Roe address what is Washington state’s paramount duty under the law and state constitution?
Dick Rylander & Larry Roe
for Clark County Today
Basic education has been defined by the state many times over the years. In 2009, several bills, including HB 2261 and HB 2776, were passed by the Legislature. These bills define the basics of basic education. They apply only to Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) and even though early learning and higher education are important, they are not included in the definition of basic education in Washington state.
Learning environment
· A full day of kindergarten (new in 2009; before that it was a half-day)
· No more than 17 students per certificated staff member in grades K-3. (This is commonly referred to as “class size.” But it’s important to understand that the actual requirement is a ratio of students to all certificated instructional staff, which includes teachers, librarians, counselors, health services staff and others.)
· A district-wide average of 1,080 hours of instruction for each school year for high school students, and at least 1,000 hours for grades K-8
· At least 180 days of school each year
· The opportunity to earn 24 credits to earn a high-school diploma
· Bus transportation for students who live more than one to two miles from school, depending on the grade level
Learning programs
· Special education to help students with disabilities
· Bilingual program for students who need help learning English
· Remedial education for students who fall behind
· An accelerated or enriched learning program for students who qualify. These are often referred to as highly capable programs.
· An educational program for students who are in a juvenile-detention center, a state institution or a residential school
“Ample’’ means more than adequate
· In 2012, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the McCleary case that the state government had failed its paramount constitutional duty to fully fund basic education. The ruling also clarified what “ample” support for basic education means. The following is a good summary from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). The italicized quotes are quotes from the ruling.
· The word “ample” in article IX, section 1 provides a broad constitutional guideline meaning fully, sufficient, and considerably more than just adequate (p 3).
· “Basic education” means whatever is necessary to give students the opportunity to master the state’s four learning goals and the Essential Academic Learning Requirements:
· The “education” required under article IX, section 1 consists of the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and skills described in Seattle School District, ESHB 1209, and the EALRs. It does not reflect a right to a guaranteed educational outcome.
· It includes funding for overhead costs, such as transportation, and staff salaries and benefits:
· If the state’s funding formulas provide only a portion of what it actually costs a school to pay its teachers, get kids to school, and keep the lights on, then the legislature cannot maintain that it is fully funding basic education through its funding formulas.
· Relying on local levies or federal funding is unconstitutional because it is unstable and unfair
· The fact that local levy funds have been at least in part supporting the basic education program is inescapable…..Reliance on levy funding to finance basic education was unconstitutional 30 years ago…. and it is unconstitutional now.
· Similarly, we find it difficult to characterize federal funding of certain education programs as a “regular and dependable tax source,” … for purposes of satisfying the state’s obligation.
· Lack of revenue does not justify failing to meet the paramount duty:
· To ensure that the legislature exercises its authority within constitutionally prescribed bounds, any reduction of programs or offerings from the basic education program must be accompanied by an educational policy rationale. That is, the legislature may not eliminate an offering from the basic education program for reasons unrelated to educational policy, such as fiscal crisis or mere expediency.
The state is not meeting its paramount duty
· We affirm the trial court’s declaratory ruling and hold that the State has not complied with its article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington.
· Full implementation of the HB 2261 is the solution:
The legislature enacted a reform package under ESHB 2261, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009), which if fully funded, will remedy deficiencies in the K-12 funding system.
The McCleary Decision
The Washington State Supreme Court made several points in their 2012 ruling on the funding of public schools. Primarily, they asserted that the state did not cover the spending practices of the public school districts in three areas noted in the trial that they were reviewing: salaries and benefits for school district staff, transportation for students, and acquisition of goods (books, etc.) and services to operated schools (insurance, subcontracts, etc.). The court accepted the fact that school districts uniformly used their enrichment levy money to augment state funding for these three areas as proof that the funding from the legislature was insufficient.
No mention was made of labor compensation studies in the bench trial. The state had made no effort to determine the adequacy of the school district staff compensation to attract and retain staff aside from anecdotal testimony from school administrators. Presumably, this is the job of the legislature.
The legislature has increased spending on K-12 education by about 7% per year since 2016 (Office of Financial Management) and the spending on public education has held constant at about 22% of the rapidly rising state budget. This increased spending level caused the Supreme Court to assess that the legislature has met the mandate to increase spending on K-12 education from their 2012 McCleary ruling. Even though the state spending rate continues to increase at a 7% rate, we are once again consuming most of the local levy money to fund basic education. A recent review of legislative priorities notes that public K-12 schools are again overspending the state allocation in the same three areas noted in the McCleary Decision.
Analysis and commentary
Our school administrations appear to be in the habit of overspending the budget from the duly elected legislative representatives. Our school boards seem to be in agreement that these budgets are justified. The districts that can only continue to make payroll with short term loans from the state or county treasurers appeal for more money to operate in a manner consistent with their reading of state law that has set an expectation of ever higher spending. One school board director noted that they are “obligated to provide these services no matter the cost”.
Please note that there is no reference to the state supporting nor supplying funding for physical facilities. Those are left to individual districts to deal with. From a facility cost standpoint school projects must pay “prevailing wages” rather than market prices…which increases construction budgets by as much as 30-40%.
Finally, the state has a “prototypical model” for funding. Effective Sept. 2024 the guidelines of what is included were changed: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28a.150.260
Please note that every district will have their own opinion as to what services are needed and how many personnel it takes to meet the needs of their students. Therein lies an area of dispute and disagreement.
We hope this article helps clarify what “basic” education is and is not in Washington state. Watch for our next three-part series on K-12 education mandates in Washington state.
Also read part 1:
Opinion: Part 1 – Basic education in Washington state; A primer
Also read:
- Opinion: Legislative leaders fail (again) to limit the abuse of emergency power in Washington state
Washington Policy Center’s Paul Guppy says emergency power reform has stalled - Letter: ‘Belkot was voted in to represent the people in Council District 2’Bob Zak defends Councilor Michelle Belkot’s role representing District 2
- Letter: ‘We need a serious conversation about balancing compassion and environmental responsibility’Peter Bracchi raises concerns over damage to Cold Creek in Vancouver
- Opinion: Road rage and aggressive drivingDoug Dahl breaks down rising road rage and aggressive driving concerns in WA
- Opinion: The fix is in
Marvin Case critiques the I-5 bridge replacement plan, favoring a third bridge and questioning costly light rail.
wpDiscuz
