In McCleary, the Supreme Court did not mandate the 'A+ Plan;' said the legislature should decide
Today The Seattle Times reports the Governor’s budget forecast for next year, which shows a $1.5 billion revenue increase, also shows there’s not enough money to “meet K-12 spending mandated by the state Supreme Court.” This characterization of what the Court ruled is wrong.
The Supreme Court has not mandated higher K-12 spending. The Court said K-12 policy decisions must be made by lawmakers. Page 3 of the ruling says:
“The State has not complied with its article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington.”
It then cites what it calls a “promising” reform package (the A+ plan), but then concludes:
“This court defers to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty ...” (Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court defers to the Legislature “its chosen means of discharging” its constitutional obligations. This means the Legislature is in charge of carrying out its duty to fund education. The Court describes the A+ plan as “promising,” but it is only one of many possible solutions available to lawmakers.
Simply pouring more money into the current dysfunctional, monopoly system will not improve the schools, as past experience shows. In her first term, Governor Gregoire tried exactly this approach, and learned to her deep disappointment that:
“I came in here determined to make the system work better. To invest more money. I put a lot more money into K–12. But then you sit there and say, ‘Why have I not been able to get the result I set out to achieve?’” (“Frustrated Gregoire says ‘status quo does not work,’” The Seattle Times, January 15, 2011.)
Appropriating money and deciding on policy reforms which will improve the schools---these are the responsibility of the Legislature. The Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and cannot, and should not, order the Legislature to carry out any particular spending program. Our government is based upon a balance of power among co-equal branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial.
Judges do not have the knowledge or experience to know the best way to improve the schools; that is what our elected representatives are for.
Comments
A+ Plan
You note: "The Court describes the A+ plan as “promising,” but it is only one of many possible solutions available to lawmakers."
The "promising reform program" the Court is describing is the already adopted ESHB 2261. I agree ESHB 2261 is "only one of many possible solutions available" -- however, the Court's McCleary ruling is based on the implementation and full funding of ESHB 2261.
Additionally, the Court's basis for retaining jurisdiction over the case was to "monitor implementation of the reforms under ESHB 2261...". The Court's recent Retention of Jurisdiction Order requires the State to file periodic reports summarizing "actions taken towards implementing the reforms initiated by Laws of 2009, ch. 548 (ESHB 2261)."
So, yes, the Court did defer to the Legislature's chosen means of discharging its paramount duty; however, I think they made it pretty clear that absent something better than ESHB 2261, the Legislature better make good on the promises made in that already approved legislation.
On another note, I find it confusing (if not troubling) that you refer to ESHB 2261 as the "A+ Plan." Never during the development, debate, adoption or implementation of the bill has HB 2261 been referred to as the "A+ Plan." I suppose you could be arguing that the current A+ Plan being advanced by the Excellent Schools Now Coalition (and gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna, among others) could be one of the solutions available to legislators in fulfiling its constitutional obligations, but you never explain what you mean by referencing the "A+ Plan." If you're talking about HB 2261, please call it HB 2261. If you're talking about something else, let the rest of us in on the secret and tell us what you mean.
K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING
If you look at the history of Washington K-12 funding, you will find that almost every ten years since the 1960's the legislature has established some type of special K-12 committee for funding and/or results. You will also note that right after passage of significant legislation the education groups, notably the WEA, starts the process of unraveling anything dealing with accountability or standards. They have been successful to date. Therefore, unless a much larger politically powerful group that is unafraid of the WEA comes into being, no change of any substance will ever occur in K-12 education. Yet all the education groups will continue to push hard for more money and less accountability and use politically "sweet" arguments to influence the public.
A governor and both parties' leadership teams must come together and vow that they will not bend to any pressures when they decide to try another reform effort. It will require great courage unseen for years in the legislature. And it cannot include the State Superintendent of Instruction who is part of the problem just like his predecessors.
The other way is that a separate and substantial fund source(s) must be found that will rally around the proven practices and standards that work in K-12 education, select the brightest and best educators to carry it out, and demonstrate in real public schools what can be done if it is done according to standards and proven practices which are never ever compromised. This option requires that the reform effort go on for at least 20 years, or until it is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it has worked and why.
The result of this latter effort should be to have put in place a Professional Education Program that actually produces teachers who know how to teach and are not intimidated by those who do not. This PEP should pick up the costs of time and training for all enrolled teachers and continue to do so throughout their careers so long as they maintain the rigor involved in the standards and proven practices of the PEP.
Every governor since Dan Evans has finally been as frustrated as Governor Gregoire.