They acknowledge challenges still lie ahead
Clark County school superintendents who have long struggled to meet their districts’ needs with dwindling state funding hailed a long-awaited Superior Court ruling Thursday that said Washington is not meeting its constitutional duty to fully fund basic education.
“I applaud and am cheered by the King County judge’s ruling in this case, as our district has been running on a half-tank of gas for many years and still is,” said Battle Ground Superintendent Shonny Bria in a statement.
“Now a judge has decided the state must fully fund basic education and take that responsibility off the backs of local taxpayers,” Bria said.
Group sues state
In 2007, a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers, labor unions and community leaders sued the state, claiming it was failing to meet its constitutional obligation to make funding of K-12 education its paramount duty.
In 2008, Vancouver Public Schools joined the coalition and threw its support behind the lawsuit.
Vancouver Superintendent Steven Webb said in a statement that the decision was good news for the children of Washington, but cautioned that schools are not in the clear yet.
Vancouver Schools “still faces fiscal challenges in the short term,” he said. “The impact of today’s ruling is unknown but it is an important first step in addressing the structural deficits inherent in the way this state has chosen to fund its public schools.”
In his written decision, Judge John Erlick said basic education is not being funded with stable and dependable sources of revenue. Instead, he said, school districts are forced to rely on local levies and other sources.
Battle Ground officials know all too well how unreliable local levies can be as a funding source. The district did not collect any local tax money in 2007 after its levy measures failed twice in 2006.
And with ballots due Tuesday for eight local school districts requesting replacement maintenance levies, including Battle Ground, Bria said school districts will still face tough financial times.
“Until today’s ruling does actually take effect, with sufficient money for schools from the Legislature, we continue to face a triple whammy,” she said. “One, the state’s historic failure to fully fund schools will continue; two, state support is at least temporarily even worse due to the current economy; and three, the ongoing potential for levy failures.”
Vancouver schools spokeswoman Kris Sork said the district has had a levy in place continuously since 1964.
“It’s still an essential piece in our basic education.”
It will be years before the Legislature puts in place a new, more stable funding source. And local officials acknowledge the ruling will likely face an appeal, which could draw out the implementation of a new plan even further.
“We’ve had similar cases and rulings in the past and not have any result come out of it,” said Tim Merlino, chief financial officer for Educational Service District 112.
New revenue a must
Former state Rep. Bill Fromhold has watched the cap on local school levies creep up steadily since a key 1977 court ruling. In the late 1970s, the Legislature capped the share of school district spending that could be covered by local levies at 10 percent. “Now it has crept up to 24 percent and there is a proposal to raise it to 28 percent this year,” he said. “Levies have gone well beyond being used for extra-special enhancements.”
Fromhold brings a unique perspective to the issue. Before his election to the Legislature in 2000, he served as superintendent of the Evergreen School District and ESD 112. In Olympia, he was vice chairman of the budget-writing House Appropriations Committee from 2001 to 2006.
Since 1977, he said, state per-pupil spending, when adjusted for inflation, has been “essentially flat,” climbing from $4,000 to about $4,200.
The 2009 Legislature approved a plan to redefine basic education and reform the way it pays for it. But it has no plan to pay the cost, which is estimated at between $2.7 billion and $2.9 billion, Fromhold said.
“It absolutely will take new revenue,” he said. “When you look at all the challenges the state faces now, to meet the requirement that the court sets out, it is going to require new revenue.”
