Attorney slams state lawmakers on school funding
SEATTLE (AP) - The attorney representing a coalition of parents and education groups that sued the state over school funding told the Washington Supreme Court on Wednesday that the Legislature is still avoiding its constitutional duty to school children.
In a filing to the court, attorney Thomas Ahearne wrote that he was disappointed with a legislative report to the court last month.
Ahearne said lawmakers seem to think that they can postpone fulfilling the court's order to put more money into education because of the economy, but his clients believe state officials need to obey the constitution even when times are difficult.
In January, the Supreme Court ruled the state isn't meeting its constitutional obligation to amply pay for basic education. In the past decade, education spending has gone from close to 50 percent to just above 40 percent of the state budget, despite the fact that some education spending is protected by the constitution.
State lawmakers have in recent years been dealing with large budget deficits, and earlier this year they cut $300 million in state funding.
A month ago, Washington lawmakers filed their first annual progress report in answer to the Supreme Court's ruling on the lawsuit known as the McCleary case. The brief filed Wednesday is the coalition's response.
Ahearne called on the court to make this a "teachable moment" for the schoolchildren of Washington.
"This court's response will teach our upcoming generation of Washington citizens a fundamental lesson about whether our constitution really matters," he wrote.
The 57-page report suggested a few possible ways to teach the Legislature a lesson, including fines, more specific instructions for writing the next state budget, or an order to do all the overhaul work in one biennium instead of giving the Legislature until 2018 to finish.
State Rep. Gary Alexander, co-chairman of the legislative committee charged with making these reports to the court, disagreed strongly with Ahearne's assessment of the Legislature's action on school funding.
Alexander, R-Olympia, said he felt the Legislature was making good progress in creating a plan for finding more dollars for education and he was optimistic the 2013 Legislature would focus on education funding.
"When I come back in January, I will consider that obligation our No. 1 priority," Alexander said.
His co-chair, Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle, said lawmakers understand they don't have a choice about obeying the Supreme Court's orders and added that they have been working hard to do so.
Finding the money to pay for all-day kindergarten for every child might be the Legislature's first priority, both Frockt and Alexander speculated.
"Not only is it required under the reform plan, but it has the most potential to address achievement gap issues," Frockt said.
He added, however, that the plan won't be finished until the end of December and then the proposal will need legislative approval, money in the state budget and a signature from the new governor.
Ahearne's court filing said the Legislature not only failed to make progress on the Supreme Court's two goals - to demonstrate steady progress toward implementing the reforms promised previously and to show real and measurable progress toward paying for those reforms by 2018 - but it chose not to make progress.
The next legislative report is due 60 days after the governor signs the state budget.
Alexander said lawmakers will have a preliminary plan for how to start paying more for education in December. The main question, at this point, is whether the Legislature should put a down payment on every reform or pick one or two to focus on first, he said.
In a filing to the court, attorney Thomas Ahearne wrote that he was disappointed with a legislative report to the court last month.
Ahearne said lawmakers seem to think that they can postpone fulfilling the court's order to put more money into education because of the economy, but his clients believe state officials need to obey the constitution even when times are difficult.
In January, the Supreme Court ruled the state isn't meeting its constitutional obligation to amply pay for basic education. In the past decade, education spending has gone from close to 50 percent to just above 40 percent of the state budget, despite the fact that some education spending is protected by the constitution.
State lawmakers have in recent years been dealing with large budget deficits, and earlier this year they cut $300 million in state funding.
A month ago, Washington lawmakers filed their first annual progress report in answer to the Supreme Court's ruling on the lawsuit known as the McCleary case. The brief filed Wednesday is the coalition's response.
Ahearne called on the court to make this a "teachable moment" for the schoolchildren of Washington.
"This court's response will teach our upcoming generation of Washington citizens a fundamental lesson about whether our constitution really matters," he wrote.
The 57-page report suggested a few possible ways to teach the Legislature a lesson, including fines, more specific instructions for writing the next state budget, or an order to do all the overhaul work in one biennium instead of giving the Legislature until 2018 to finish.
State Rep. Gary Alexander, co-chairman of the legislative committee charged with making these reports to the court, disagreed strongly with Ahearne's assessment of the Legislature's action on school funding.
Alexander, R-Olympia, said he felt the Legislature was making good progress in creating a plan for finding more dollars for education and he was optimistic the 2013 Legislature would focus on education funding.
"When I come back in January, I will consider that obligation our No. 1 priority," Alexander said.
His co-chair, Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle, said lawmakers understand they don't have a choice about obeying the Supreme Court's orders and added that they have been working hard to do so.
Finding the money to pay for all-day kindergarten for every child might be the Legislature's first priority, both Frockt and Alexander speculated.
"Not only is it required under the reform plan, but it has the most potential to address achievement gap issues," Frockt said.
He added, however, that the plan won't be finished until the end of December and then the proposal will need legislative approval, money in the state budget and a signature from the new governor.
Ahearne's court filing said the Legislature not only failed to make progress on the Supreme Court's two goals - to demonstrate steady progress toward implementing the reforms promised previously and to show real and measurable progress toward paying for those reforms by 2018 - but it chose not to make progress.
The next legislative report is due 60 days after the governor signs the state budget.
Alexander said lawmakers will have a preliminary plan for how to start paying more for education in December. The main question, at this point, is whether the Legislature should put a down payment on every reform or pick one or two to focus on first, he said.
I'd like to see them get fined out of their own pockets.
Parents and Education Groups are Victims.
- Hope they get Lots of Moneeeeeeey.
Can somebody clue me in on what SPECIFIC amount the State Constitution mandates that we spend on education expense? Or is it some sort of vague and ephemeral amount that fluctuates to the demands of the WEA?
Â
Sid to WEA;
Â
Sid:Would your members be willing to work in charter schools?
WEA: No, we demand that the State find funding for public schools. .
Sid: We'll pay $250K per year per teacher.
WEA: Well, that sounds great. We would do it for that.
Sid: How about $30,000 per year?
WEA: Hey, what kind of Union do you think we are?
Sid: We've already established what you are, now we're just negotiating price.
Question:Â What percentage, on average--dependent on whatever school district, of school funding goes strictly to pay salaries....be it teachers, administrators, and support staff.
If we pass more levies, or raise "revenues" in other forms, how much will actually fund programs?? Buy supplies??
How much will just go directly into stuffing pockets?
Even when the economy was healthier, the legislatures and the governor opted to cut or not increase
the funding for basic education.
Â
The judicial branch had on numerous rulings found that the state was not meeting the constitutional
mandate for full funding of basic education.Â
Â
More to the point, the individual districts were having to ask for levies to meet that goal, a goal
that the Washington state constitution mandated be accomplished by the state, not the school
districts. The function of district's school levies in the past allowed for advanced education,
sports programs, and other programs not funded by the state
Â
The last time that the judicial branch again found that the state was not meeting the constitutional
mandate of fully funding basic education, they actually put some teeth into the finding with goals
that must met or there would be serious consequences for not doing so.
Â
Now the state government must finally face the facts of the findings and they are scrambling to
find solutions that should been addressed over the last decades.
Â
Until two years ago, only one party controlled both the state house, the state senate, and the
governors office for decades.
Â
One can easily see to which political party the blame falls if one only takes the time to look.Â
 Vote this November please.
Â