WASHINGTON STATE'S DUTY TO FUND K-12 SCHOOLS: WHERE THE LEGISLATURE WENT WRONG AND WHAT IT SHOULD DO TO MEET ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION
Daniel C. Stallings
Abstract: The Washington State Constitution makes education Washington State's top priority. Article IX, section 1 proclaims that "[i]t is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders . . . "(fn1). In the 1978 case of Seattle School District v. State,(fn2) the Washington State Supreme Court interpreted this language as a command to the state legislature. The Court ordered the legislature to fulfill its constitutional duty by defining and fully funding "basic education" and a "basic program of education."(fn3) The legislature attempted to comply by passing and subsequently amending the Basic Education Act and, in 2009, by passing H.B. 2261.(fn4) This Comment analyzes the state's school-funding duty in light of these legislative efforts and recent Washington school-funding cases. This Comment concludes that the legislature has not met its constitutional duty because it has not adequately defined a "basic program of education," and therefore recommends that the legislature amend H.B. 2261 to bring the state into compliance with article IX, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
Washington State's constitution boasts one of the strongest K-12 school-funding mandates of any state constitution.(fn5) Article IX, section 1 of the Washington State Constitution proclaims that "[i]t is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders . . . ."(fn6) The Washington State Supreme Court has said that "[n]o other state has placed the common school on so high a pedestal."(fn7)
Yet even with the strongly worded language of the state constitution, Washington repeatedly falls below the national average in educational expenditures per student.(fn8) For example, in the 2007-08 school year, the national average educational expenditure per student was $10,615, and the highest-spending states spent nearly twice that.(fn9) In contrast, Washington spent $9980 per student.(fn10)
The Washington State Supreme Court recognized the strength of Washington's school-funding mandate in the landmark 1978 case Seattle School District v. State(fn11) In that case, the Court considered a constitutional challenge to the use of local tax levies for K-12 school funding.(fn12) The Court determined that article IX, section 1 gives rise to a mandatory, judicially enforceable duty(fn13) and that the words "paramount" and "ample" in article IX, section 1 have their ordinary robust meanings.(fn14) Finally, the Court ordered the legislature to clarify the precise scope of the state's article IX, section 1 duty and to define and fully fund what the Court called "basic education" and a "basic program of education."(fn15)
Since 1977, the legislature has attempted to meet its constitutional duty by passing and amending several pieces of legislation. First, in 1977, following the trial court decision in Seattle School District, the legislature passed the Basic Education Act.(fn16) In 1993, the legislature substantially amended the Act to more clearly articulate the concept of basic education.(fn17) Most recently in 2009, the legislature enacted H.B. 2261, which will overhaul the state's education funding system in 2011.(fn18)
Washington courts have heard several important challenges to these legislative efforts. In particular, the trial judge whose opinion was affirmed in Seattle School District, Judge Robert Doran, authored two highly influential school-funding opinions in the 1980s that refined both the state's school-funding duty and the requirements of a constitutionally sufficient "basic program of education."(fn19) Additionally in 2010, in McCleary v. State, King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick held that the state is currently breaching its constitutional duty to make ample provision for education.(fn20)
Part I of this Comment analyzes the legislature's duty under article IX, section 1 and the Seattle School District decision. Part II reviews the legislature's attempts to fulfill its duty. Part III discusses how Washington school-funding decisions after Seattle School District have impacted the state's duty. Finally, Part IV concludes that the legislature has failed to meet its constitutional obligation and that this failure stems from an inadequate definition of a "basic program of education." It argues that the current definition is insufficient because the state can comply with its statutory requirements and yet still fail to "make ample provision for . . . education."(fn21) This is because the legislature's current scheme imposes no statutory funding obligation on the legislature and, as a practical matter, makes it extremely difficult to enforce article IX, section 1 in court.
This Comment recommends that the legislature amend H.B. 2261 to bring the state into compliance with article IX, section 1 and Seattle School District. Such an amendment should do two things: First, it should establish formulas or standards to determine annual allocations for each program or service that is part of basic education. Second, it should require that the allocation for each program or service cover its actual cost. Such an amendment would provide a constitutionally adequate definition of a "basic program of education" and, in effect, would encompass the minimum cost of education within that definition. Moreover, amending the bill in these ways would impose a statutory funding obligation on the legislature(fn22) and for practical purposes would make H.B. 2261 enforceable in court by removing some of the barriers to enforcement that exist today. These steps would help bring the state into compliance with its constitutional duty.
I. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT CLARIFIED THE STATE'S DUTY UNDER ARTICLE IX, SECTION 1
Seattle School District is the leading case on Washington State's duty to fund K-12 schools.(fn23) Thurston County Superior Court first heard the case after the Seattle School District sued the State of Washington, alleging that the state was not meeting its duty to "make ample provision for . . . education" as required by article IX, section 1.(fn24) The school district argued that the state should not be able to rely on local tax levies to fund basic education because doing so would result in less than "ample" funding.(fn25) The problem was that school districts often had difficulty passing levies and, as a result, could not generate enough revenue to meet operating costs.(fn26) Judge Robert Doran, and ultimately the Washington State Supreme Court, agreed with the school district.(fn27) With its opinion, the state supreme court established a framework for understanding the state's duty under article IX, section 1.
This framework stressed three key foundations. First, article IX, section 1 gives rise to a mandatory and judicially enforceable duty.(fn28 ) Second, the words "paramount" and "ample" carry their ordinary robust meanings.(fn29) Finally, as part of its duty to make ample provision for education, the legislature must clarify the scope of the state's duty by defining and fully funding "basic education" and a "basic program of education."(fn30)
A. Article IX, Section 1 Gives Rise to a Mandatory, Judicially Enforceable Duty
Article IX, section 1 declares that "[i]t is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders . . . ."(fn31) The strong tone of this wording was no accident. The Washington State Constitution's framers were mindful that other states had neglected education, and they wanted to avoid similar problems in Washington.(fn32) Thus, they made the state's duty to fund education "paramount" and required the state to make "ample" provision for education.(fn33)
Acknowledging that intent, the state supreme court in Seattle School District held that the state's duty to make ample provision for education is both mandatory and judicially enforceable.(fn34) The Court noted that, unless otherwise stated, all constitutional provisions are mandatory.(fn35) The Court also held that article IX, section 1 is judicially enforceable: the courts can order a remedy for violations of article IX, section 1.(fn36) The Court rejected the State's theory that, because the duty to make ample provision for education lies with the legislature, any remedy for breach of that duty should be "political not judicial."(fn37) To the contrary, the Court held that the judiciary can and must provide a remedy for a breach of article IX, section 1 as part of its "power and . . . duty to interpret, construe, and give meaning to words, sections and articles of the constitution."(fn38) The Court's message was clear: the legislature must take steps to comply with article IX, section 1.(fn39)
B. The Words "Paramount" and "Ample" Carry Their Ordinary Robust Meanings
After establishing that the duty in article IX, section 1 is mandatory and enforceable in court, the state supreme court in Seattle School District next had to determine what that duty entailed. The Court began by focusing on two words in article IX, section 1: "paramount" and "ample."(fn40)
In interpreting the meaning of these two words, the...
