education funding litigation in washington state (june 2014)
TRANSCRIPT
McCleary v. State of WashingtonEducation funding litigation…and its implications
2
History of Education Funding & Litigation
McCleary Case & Decision(s)
Implementation of McCleary
What about the future?
McCleary v. State - Overview
3
“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.”
Article IX, Section 1Washington State Constitution
Paramount Duty Clause
4
1976: Seattle School District files suit against state
1977: Superior Court Judge Robert Doran finds for the school districts
1977: Legislature adopts Basic Education Act of 1977
1978: State Supreme Court affirms Doran decision
1980: State increases K-12 funding share
Education Funding & Litigation
5
1983: Second Doran decision expands “basic education” definition – special education, remediation assistance and transportation
1987-88: Doran issues special ed decision 1993: Legislature adopts Education Reform
Act of 1993 1995: Legislature changes special ed formula
Education Funding & Litigation
6
2005: The Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) is formed◦ Comprised of 70+ organizations and school districts
committed to improving the quality of public education in Washington
2007: McCleary v. State of Washington filed in King County Superior Court NEWS filed a lawsuit, asking the court to order the
State of Washington to live up to its paramount constitutional duty to make ample provision for the education of all Washington children
Education Funding & Litigation
7
State Funding Actual District Costs0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Statewide Funding – all 295 School Districts2007-08 School Year
State’s “basic educa-tion” funding
Other State funds
School facilities
Classroomteachers
Pupil transportation
Librarians, counselors, safety personnel, health etc.
Principals, etc.
Utilities, insurance, etc.
ExtracurricularFood service
Capital Project Fund ex-penses
ASB Fund expenses
Dolla
rs in
Billi
ons
8
9
Local levy revenue at the same level as before Doran Decision
1978-1979
1979-1980
1980-1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
1983-1984
1984-1985
1985-1986
1986-1987
1987-1988
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-20100.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Percent of State and Local Revenue Sources (excludes federal and other revenue sources)
State Revenue
Local Revenue
20.5%
Source: OSPI 5/10
10
Local Levies as a Percent ofAll School Districts’ Revenue
Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, 11/12
11
2009: McCleary v. State of Washington heard in King County Superior Court
2010: Judge John Erlick rules for the plaintiffs, declaring the State’s failure to fully fund public schools is unconstitutional:◦ “This court is left with no doubt that under the State’s
current financing system, the state is failing in its constitutional duty. “
McCleary v. State
12
“State funding is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable…local school districts continue to rely on local levies and other non-state resources to supplement state funding for a basic education.”
“Paramount means preeminent, supreme, and more important than others. Funding K-12 education…is the state’s first and highest priority before any other state programs or operations.”
- Judge John Erlick
McCleary v. State
13
Judge Erlick directed the Legislature to:◦“determine the cost of amply providing for
basic education and a basic program of education for all children”
◦“provide stable and dependable funding for such costs of basic education”
http://1.usa.gov/1hnDDNU
McCleary v. State
14
2009: Adopted ESHB 2261◦ Redefined basic education and restructured state’s
education finance system
◦ Stated Legislature’s intent that a newly redefined Program of Basic Education and the necessary funding to support it be fully implemented by 2018
◦ Created the Quality Education Council to monitor implementation
◦ Established a series of work groups to provide implementation recommendations
Legislative Response
15
2010: Adopted SHB 2776◦ Began implementation of new Prototypical
School Funding Model, as created in ESHB 2261
◦ Called for funding enhancements for: K-3 Class Size Reduction; All-Day Kindergarten; Maintenance, Supplies & Operating Costs (MSOC); and Pupil Transportation
◦ Established a schedule for the enhanced funding
Legislative Response
16
2011: Supreme Court hears State’s appeal in McCleary case
2012 (January): Supreme Court unanimously affirms trial court’s ruling. Court retains jurisdiction in case to ensure the State complies with its paramount duty
http://1.usa.gov/TRJ3cI
McCleary v. State
17
Supreme Court rules:◦ The State “has consistently failed” to provide the
ample funding required by the Constitution.
◦ “Reliance on levy funding to finance basic education was unconstitutional 30 years ago in Seattle School District, and it is unconstitutional now.”
Supreme Court Orders State to:◦ “demonstrate steady progress” under ESHB 2261;
and
◦ “show real and measurable progress” towards full Article IX, Section 1 compliance by 2018.
McCleary v. State
18
2012 (July): Supreme Court issues Final Order on Retention of Jurisdiction, requiring the State to:◦ file periodic reports summarizing actions to
implement ESHB 2261 and achieve compliance with the Constitution; and
◦ show “real and measurable progress” toward achieving full constitutional compliance by 2018
◦http://1.usa.gov/SMTldi
McCleary v. State
19
2012 (December): Supreme Court affirms that “Year 2018 remains a firm deadline” for constitutional compliance. Court Orders the State’s 2013 compliance report to:◦ set out the State’s plan in sufficient detail to allow
progress to be measured according to periodic benchmarks between now and 2018;
◦ indicate a phase-in schedule for achieving its mandate; and
◦ demonstrate that its budget meets its plan
http://1.usa.gov/SN0zOq
McCleary v. State
McCleary v. State
Implementing McCleary
21
ESHB 2261 – Program Changes Required
22
SHB 2776 – Funding Changes Required
23
SHB 2776 Resource Phase-inSchool Year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
1
Full-Day KindergartenMust be fully funded statewide by
2017-18Phase-in based on FRPL
219 Schools
More funding can begin
More funding must begin
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Fully Funded
2
K-3 Class Size ReductionMust be fully funded statewide by
2017-18Phase-in based on FRPL
$0More
funding can begin
More funding must begin
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Fully Funded
3
Materials, Supplies, Operation Costs (MSOC)
Must be fully funded by 2015-16$ per student basis
More funding can begin
More funding must begin
Continues to ramp
up
Continues to ramp
up
Funded at new level
Funded at new level
Funded at new level
4Basic Transportation
Must be fully funded by 2014-15% of formula funded basis
More funding can begin
More funding must begin
Continues to ramp
up
Fully Funded
Fully Funded
Fully Funded
Fully Funded
Source: OSPI, 5/10
Joint Task Force on Education Funding must: Make recommendations for how the Legislature can
meet the requirements of ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776 Develop a proposal for a reliable and dependable
funding mechanism to support basic education programs—multiple options may be recommended, but must recommend one preferred alternative
Consider QEC recommendations (2012) for the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program
Report recommendations by December 31, 2012
24
Education Funding Task Force
Subjects the Task Force considered: Phase-in schedule for funding program enhancements:
◦ Maintenance, Supplies & Operating Costs (MSOC)◦ Pupil transportation◦ K-3 class-size reduction◦ Full-day kindergarten phase in
Recommendation(s) on phasing in other enhancements:◦ 24 credits for high-school graduation◦ 1,080 hours of instruction for grades 7-12
Recommendation(s) on changes to TBIP Recommendation(s) on paying for the new costs
25
Education Funding Task Force
26
Four Senators Four Representatives
Three Gov appointees
Democratic Caucus Democratic Caucus Jeff Vincent (Chair)Sen. Lisa Brown Rep. Marcie Maxwell Sen. David Frockt Rep. Pat Sullivan Susan Enfield (Vice
Chair)
Republican Caucus Republican Caucus Mary LindquistSen. Joe Fain Rep. Gary AlexanderSen. Steve Litzow Rep. Susan Fagan
Alternates AlternatesSen. Christine Rolfes (D)
Rep. Cathy Dahlquist (R)Rep. Ross Hunter (D)Rep. Kristine Lytton (D)
Education Funding Task Force
27
Education Funding Task ForceAdopted Spending Plan
Source: Joint Task Force on Education Funding, Final Report, 12/12
28
McCleary v. State
Is the State making “steady progress” toward full
compliance with Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution?
30
3131
Initial McCleary Investment2013-15 Operating Budget
Initial McCleary Basic Education Investment
2013-15 Operating Budget
32Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools, 11/12
33
Real and steady progress towards full funding-- State Testimony vs. Actual Funding—
(Per Pupil State Funding)
Source: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools response to 2013 Post-Budget Filing, 1/14
McCleary v. State
The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction in the case,
requiring annual compliance reports
35
The 2013-15 operating budget contains “$982.0 million in enhancements to basic education allocation formulas. Funding is provided to address…full-day kindergarten; early elementary class size reduction; pupil transportation; and materials, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC).” Also, funding is provided for “the enhancement to instructional hours for grades 7 through 12…”.
35
State’s 2nd Compliance Report
36
In addition, the Legislature funded: “an increase in the Learning Assistance (LAP) allocation; a new program providing state-funded supplemental instruction following a student's exit from the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program (TBIP); and new funding formula allocations for parent involvement coordinators and middle school and high school guidance counselors.”
36
State’s 2nd Compliance Report
37
“The Court should find that the State is making progress toward implementing the reforms initiated in ESHB 2261 and achieving full compliance with Article IX, Section 1 by 2018.”
http://1.usa.gov/1ordnY0
37
State’s Conclusion
38
Defendant's $982 million “increase" claim falls short of steady progress to full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018
Defendant's School Salary “restoration" claim falls short of a detailed plan or steady progress to full market rate funding by 2018
Defendant's Transportation “full funding" claim stops short of steady progress to full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018
38
NEWS Response
39
Defendant's MSOC movement falls short of steady progress to full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018
Defendant's Full-Day Kindergarten claim falls short of steady progress to full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018
Defendant's Class Size Reduction claim falls short of steady progress to full Article IX, §1 compliance by 2018
39
NEWS Response
40
“Plaintiffs humbly request that - at a minimum - this Court stop the defendant State from digging its unconstitutional underfunding hole even deeper with any unfunded mandates and issue a clear, firm, unequivocal warning to the defendant State that leaves recalcitrant elected officials no doubt that the State's continued failure to comply with this Court's Orders will result in a holding of contempt, sanctions, or other appropriate judicial enforcement which, frankly, makes compliance their far preferable option.”
40
NEWS Conclusion
http://1.usa.gov/1hw2tbY
McCleary v. State
Supreme Court issues newOrders on January 9, 2014
42
The Legislature took “meaningful steps in the 2013 legislative session to address the constitutional imperative of amply providing for basic education.”
The funding provided, however, represents “only a 6.7% increase over the current constitutionally inadequate level of funding” and the state “cannot realistically claim to have made significant progress when its own analysis shows that it is not on target to implement ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776 by the 2017–18 school year.”
42
January Supreme Court Order
43
The Legislature failed to comply with the Court’s December 2012 Order and the new Order directs the state to “submit, by April 30, 2014, a complete plan for fully implementing its program of basic education for each school year between now and the 2017–18 school year.” The plan must also include “a phase-in schedule for fully funding each of the components of basic education.”
The 2014 session presents “an opportunity to take a significant step forward.”
43
January Supreme Court Order
44
“The need for immediate action could not be more apparent. Conversely, failing to act would send a strong message about the state’s good faith commitment toward fulfilling its constitutional promise.”
The Legislature must “demonstrate, through immediate, concrete action, that it is making real and measurable progress, not simply promises.”
http://1.usa.gov/1evdg5444
January Supreme Court Order
45
The 2014 Supplemental Budget “invested an additional $58 million in general education K-12 MSOC,” but “made no further investments in either kindergarten through third grade class size reduction or expansion of all-day kindergarten.”
The Legislature did not adopt a plan “to implement the program of basic education as directed by the Court” – however, “continued discussion” was a “key legislative activity.”
State’s 3rd Compliance Report
46
Various bills were introduced that would have “addressed in full or in part the ‘plan’ that the Court requested....Although none of these bills passed the Legislature, they are meaningful because they show significant work is occurring.”
The Legislature recognizes “the pace of implementation must increase.” The upcoming 2015-17 budget “must address how targets will be met.”
State’s 3rd Compliance Report
47
The Article IX Litigation Committee “respectfully requests that the Court give deep consideration to its response to the actions taken in 2014, that such response not be counterproductive, and that it recognize that 2015 is the next and most critical year for the Legislature to reach the grand agreement needed to meet the state’s Article IX duty by the statutorily scheduled full implementation date of 2018.”
http://1.usa.gov/1n64geD
State’s 3rd Compliance Report
48
The Court’s January 2014 Order ordered the State’s April 30 filing do two things:◦Demonstrate the 2014 session took “immediate,
concrete action” to make “real and measurable progress” towards fully funding the State’s K‑12 schools by the 2017‑2018 school year; and
◦submit a complete full‑funding plan for each school year between now and the 2017‑18 school year.
“That was an Order. Not a suggestion.”
NEWS Response
49
The Legislature did what it had been ordered not to do: “It offered promises about trying to submit a plan and take significant action next year—along with excuses for why the State’s ongoing violation of kids’ constitutional rights and court orders should be excused this year.”
The Court “should not condone the State’s violation of court orders.” The Court is requested to “take immediate, concrete action to compel compliance” with the Court’s orders.
NEWS Response
50
At the very least, the Court should:◦Hold the Legislature in contempt of court;
◦Prohibit the State from adding more unfunded or underfunded mandates on its schools; and
◦ Impose even more serious sanctions on the Legislature if they do not comply with the Court’s orders by December 31, 2014.
http://1.usa.gov/TRDrPL
NEWS Response
51
On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a “show cause order.” The State has been summoned to appear before the Court to “address why the State should not be held in contempt” for violating the Court’s Orders. The State is also to address why, if it is found in contempt, any of the forms of relief requested by the plaintiffs should not be granted.
http://1.usa.gov/1lssDBH
Supreme Court Order
52
July 11: State’s response to the show cause order due to Court
August 11: NEWS answer to the State’s response due to Court
August 25: State may file a reply to the NEWS filing
September 3: Court to hear oral arguments in the show cause hearing
Date TBD: Court to issue further Orders
Next Steps…
53
The Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, along with the state’s compliance reports, NEWS responses and the Court’s Orders are available on the Washington Courts website:
http://1.usa.gov/1iYjVdC
:
53
McCleary Documentation
McCleary v. State
What Does the Future Hold?
55
Real Per Capita General Fund-State Revenues(2009 Dollars)
Source: OFM, 12/13
56
2013-15 & 2015-17 Budget Outlook
(Dollars in Millions)
Source: Economic & Revenue Forecast Council, 4/14
5757Source: Washington State Budget & Policy Center, 3/14
2015-17 Projected Budget Shortfall(March 2014)
58Source: Washington State Budget & Policy Center, 6/14
2015-17 Projected Budget Shortfall(June 2014)
5959
Additional Revenue Necessary to Sustain Investments in Education and
Other Priorities
6060
General Fund-State Revenues asPercentage of Washington Personal Income
Source: OFM, 12/13
Daniel P. SteeleAssistant Executive Director,
Government Relations825 Fifth Avenue SEOlympia, WA 98501
Education Litigation – Updated June 2014