capitol watch
Lawmakers have a big task ahead of them in 2017 — fully comply with state Supreme Court ’ s 2012 McCleary education funding ruling by the start of the 2018-19 school year .
But , the heaviest lift is ahead — levy reform . It will remedy local school districts ’ use of local levy dollars to pay for K-12 basic education expenditures , particularly teacher salaries , that are the responsibility of the state .
With the two-year budget negotiations taking place in 2017 and the final report on the full costs to address levy reform , all eyes , including the Supreme Court justices , are on the solution , cost and timeline to implement the solution .
This piece of the state budget is sure to reignite calls for new and higher taxes . And , more complicated yet , is the unpalatable prospect that property-rich school districts will be asked to pay more in the state ’ s Common Schools Levy to supplement schools in rural , less affluent parts of the state .
mccleary in a nutshell
Washington state has the strongest and clearest language on education funding in the nation . It can be found in Article IX , Section 1 , which reads in part : “ It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders …”
It ’ s the “ paramount duty ” reference the McCleary plaintiffs relied on in their case , arguing that if education truly is the top priority for the state , then the Legislature was falling down on the job . It turned out to be a winning argument . In the 2012 McCleary v . State of Washington education funding case , the state Supreme Court ordered the state to comply with the state constitution and fully and equitably fund the program of K-12 basic education as defined in House bills 2261 ( 2009 ) and 2776 ( 2010 ).
That includes pupil transportation , full-day kindergarten , K-3 class-size reductions and materials , supplies and operating costs , or MSOCs . The Legislature has put in place funding for these elements already , to the tune of $ 4.5 billion since 2013 .
But , there ’ s an added wrinkle . School districts bargain teacher salary increases and other benefit costs at the local level . Turns out , they use roughly $ 1.5 billion in local levy dollars every year , or about $ 14,000 per teacher , to fund the contracts , according to numbers supplied Nov . 15 , 2016 by an outside consulting group hired to prepare for costs in the 2017-19 budget .
So , the court added in its ruling that the state must come up with a solution to move the costs of teacher salaries back to the state budget , protecting levy dollars for the school program enhancements for which they are intended .
cost of levy reform , solutions unclear
Four years later and a legislative body deemed in contempt of court for failing to fully address McCleary and levied with a $ 100,000 per day fine since 2015 , the last piece to tackle is teacher compensation , or levy reform , and the statutory deadline for full compliance is September 2018 .
That means a plan must be put in place this year . It ’ s a tall order , if failed past attempts are any indication .
Not only could levy reform funding and changes impact the program of K-12 basic education — specifically , will student outcomes improve with the additional dollars — but the implications of the cost to the two-year budget are far from known , as are the details on proposals for new and higher taxes to pay for the change .
For more information on McCleary , educational outcomes and program specifics , contact AWB Government Affairs Director Amy Anderson at AmyA @ awb . org . For information on the budget and tax implications of McCleary , contact AWB Government Affairs Director Eric Lohnes at EricL @ awb . org . Both can be reached at 360.943.1600 . winter 2017 47