The Washington State Supreme Court ruled today on a challenge to the sufficiency of state funding of basic education.

Seven of nine justices concluded that the state has not adequately funded education, but if it implemented the provisions of recent legislation, HB 2261, that the funding deficiencies would be remedied.

The court intends to assure that the legislature implements and fully funds this by 2018, and that such implementation will satisfy the constitutional obligation.

The ruling hints that the cost could be as high as $6.3 to $8.9 billion per biennium.

Concerns

The Court shows willingness to cite the statements of funding beneficiaries as evidence of funding deficiency.

Those who commissioned reports like those of Washington Learns and the Basic Education Finance Task Force often are those who seek to curry favor with the various interests which benefit from the funding recommendations.

In the echo chamber of fellow ideologues, hand-picked experts, testimony from beneficiaries, the writers of those reports did not always connect the conclusions of their rhetoric to the real world.

Lawmakers opted for studies and rhetoric about school funding in place of action on true funding problems. Now the Court is forcing them to make good on the rhetoric even in those cases where the rhetoric is not justified by the facts.

From the Court, I would want to have each claim of insufficient funding connected to real-world evidence of that claim.

For example, the court does properly cite documentation of the underfunding of transportation by noting that the state utilizes a fuel cost metric which does not match reality.

On the other hand, the claim that “allocation for salaries and benefits fell short of the actual cost” cites the fact that local schools use about $8,000 per teacher from their levies. The fact that schools divert levy funds from supplemental services to wage enhancements is not proof that $53,000 is an inadequate wage.

Promising elements

The Court has clearly concluded that the state has “transitioned from a seat-based education system to a performance-based education system” and needs to do the same with the funding formulas.

The Court appears to want to see a funding system which provides enough for the student learning targets the legislature has set, but also a system which shows a relationship between the results and the mechanisms used to fund those results.

For those of us who seek varieties of approaches to meeting students’ needs, this finding is promising. If the state were to find ways to fund student success independent of the measures of bureaucracy (hours, ratios, staffing levels), then these ways would not violate the ruling.

This ruling affirms notions of funding student success more directly, evaluating programs and employees in terms of student success, and even focusing on teacher performance incentives rather than teacher education.

Questions ahead

The court has referenced the reforms adopted in HB 2261 in 2009 as the roadmap for adequate funding, but is everything in the bill necessary to basic education? What happens if the legislature does not comply as the Court thinks it should?

While the ruling will add pressure for the legislature to cut non-education services or to increase taxes, it also offers opportunity for true reforms. Compliance with the ruling could actually force the lawmakers to adopt positive reforms which the status quo has been reluctant to permit.

Examples which come to my mind include:

• performance-based adjustments to programs,
• lengthening of the school year,
• a true evaluation system measuring student learning growth,
• a prohibition on levy funds being diverted to wage and benefit enhancements,
• reducing the local levy burdens,
• ending grandfathered disparities between districts, or even
• a rethinking of the entire salary schedule for all school employees including market-based pay for specified abilities, excellence or duty loads.

In other words, will the addition of funding stimulate better services for kids and communities, or will we simply add to the cost of the existing service level?