Lawmakers in the state House and Senate are making progress in forging a 2017-19 budget compromise.

One of the main obstacles to progress is the McCleary school funding lawsuit.  To solve the problem, it looks like budget writers may fix one of the weaknesses in Washington’s education funding policy.

In the late 1970s, state superior court judge Robert Doran arbitrarily decided to create two spending categories: something called “basic education,” to be funded by the state, and another money bucket called “enhancements to education,” to be funded by local levies.

This two-part funding system was later enacted into statute, creating a word game that has been with us ever since.  As every student and most educators know, there is no day-to-day difference between “basic” learning and “enhancements” learning – it’s all just learning.

This false distinction has been with us ever since, and it has created a yearly fight over whether the state is paying enough for “basic” education and how to get local taxpayers to pay more because the state is not contributing enough.  The entire debate is false, of course, since local and state taxpayers are the same people.

The powerful WEA union, naturally, plays both ends.  In February union executives push hard to impose maximum levy increases on taxpayers, to “fund local schools,” then rush to Olympia, where children pay for union lobbying under Duty Code 61, to accuse lawmakers of not providing “adequate” funding for schools, because they are not doing enough “for the children.”

The result is an endless political battle over how to raise education money, driven by an ever-shifting standard that lawmakers and local voters can never meet, with students and families caught in the middle.

Judge Doran’s judicial dictate didn’t work, and it is a good example of why judges should not try to make public policy. 

In 2012, the left-leaning judges in the McCleary lawsuit, led by Chief Justice Debra Stephens, compounded Judge Doran’s error. They again pitted local taxpayers against the state to create artificial pressure to spend more, a political game that is ultimately self-defeating, and helps no child learn better.

The way to correct the problem is for the legislature to drop the reliance on local levies and provide a minimum guaranteed, state-funded level of annual funding for every child in the state.  The Senate-proposed budget does just that – it would ensure that every child receives $12,500 to pay for education, more than the tuition at many private schools.  That level would increase in future years, and additional funding would be provided for students with special needs.

The Senate plan would ensure that kids in poor districts receive the same funding as students living in property-rich districts, thus promoting fairness and social justice.

The guaranteed per-student funding policy is a simple, clean, honest way to fund education for children, which is why WEA union executives hate the idea.  They stand to lose their political double-game of pushing for maximum local tax increases and higher state taxes.

In the final days of the 2017 session, the legislature has a rare opportunity to erase the false distinction, created by a judge in 1978, between basic and enhanced education. This would set a new tone of partnership and cooperation between the state and local districts, would reduce conflict and political fighting, and would serve the public interest.