In Our View: 21st Century Education

Consternation over what constitutes full state funding for Washington’s public schools — and how to pay for it — reflects a complex equation that defies simple answers. But, if we had to boil the issue down to its essence, we might start with a quote from Randy Dorn, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction: “If we want to have a 21st century education system, we should have it for everybody, not just certain neighborhoods.”

That was one of the things Dorn said last week in a meeting with The Columbian’s Editorial Board. How to achieve that, however, is not so simple as to be distilled to a single thought — a fact that helps explain the ongoing struggles of the state Legislature to approve a budget for the 2015-17 biennium. Lawmakers are haggling, in part, over how to move toward meeting the state Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling regarding school funding in McCleary v. Washington.

A national report last week reinforced the need for changes in how the state approaches the issue, as the Education Law Center gave Washington a grade of “D” for its school funding system. In fairness to lawmakers, it should be noted that the data used to compile the grade was from 2012 — before the Legislature approved an extra $1 billion in funding for the current budget cycle, and before the details of the next budget cycle have been finalized.

Yet, while progress is being made, Dorn has dire news for those in charge of doling out money for public education. His assessment: About $9 billion from the Legislature will be necessary to fully meet the court’s mandate. That is just one opinion, and it is one that exceeds the amounts put forth by other informed opinions. But it does point out the difficulty of the task facing lawmakers and, in Dorn’s mind, it points out the need for increased taxes. “Nobody runs on ‘I want to go to Olympia and raise your taxes,’ ” said Dorn, a former state legislator. “Even the most liberal downtown Seattle legislator won’t do that. They might think it, but they won’t put it in their brochure.”

In pondering school financing, two corollaries must be addressed. One is the issue of school levies, which have become the preferred method for local districts to pay for basic educational needs that are not met by the state. That was the crux of the Supreme Court’s McCleary ruling; if the state constitution says public education is the “paramount duty” of government, then it is unconstitutional for districts to rely upon local levies — a situation that leads to inequities between districts. In theory, if the Legislature increases funding for all districts, then those districts will be able to reduce the burden of local levies upon taxpayers.

The other corollary is the fact that increased funding does not necessarily mean improved student outcomes. For example, according to a 2014 report from Education Week, Washington and Oregon — kindred spirits both geographically and philosophically — are similar in per-capita spending on education, and both are below the national average in student-teacher ratio. Yet Washington ranked ninth among the states in terms of student achievement, while Oregon ranked 40th. Washington has succeeded because of strong teachers and administrators, and because of a highly educated population that emphasizes the importance of learning. Those factors are largely independent of how much money is thrown at the issue.

All of this creates a labyrinth that is difficult to navigate. Yet lawmakers must remain focused upon the ultimate goal: A 21st century education for all Washington students.