Washington Governor Jay Inslee must sign the supplemental budget next week. When he does sign it, that action touches off a series of deadlines in the McCleary case.KUOW is reporting that the Court told the legislature they must, within 30 days of Inslee signing the supplemental budget, give them a report on their McCleary plans. Then the plaintiffs in the case can respond (within 20 days) and then the state has 10 days to reply to that response.
Now we all know what the "plan" is - there was a bill passed on it. They "plan" to kick the can down the road for another year. I'm not sure what else the legislature could say they are actually doing.
So I did a calendar check. The end of next week is April 22nd and that would be the last day the Governor can take to sign the budget. The legislature has until June 6th to respond (Memorial Day moves it one more day further on.)
The plaintiffs would have until July 6th to respond (with 4th of the July moving the date one day forward on the calendar.)
And then the legislature would have their 10 days to reply to the plaintiffs' response which takes us to July 20th.
Of course, how long after that date the Court will take to do/say anything is a guess.
The Court began fining the legislature $100,000 a day for each day McCleary is not implemented and, last I checked, that was about $24M. The legislature did nothing this session to pay that fine.
In the November 2015 court filing, the McCleary side is asking the court to consider cancelling school next September by invalidating state school statutes it decides are not amply funded. An alternative would be for the court to suspend the state’s tax exemption statutes. One of the most important tax exemptions in the state is the one that prevents sales taxes from being imposed on food.Now if I were a justice, I would not be happy that more didn't get done on McCleary and the fine was ignored. I would be upset that there was virtually no real discussion on McCleary at all this session. Further, I would notice that the legislature did have time to discuss and pass a new charter school bill (despite the old law still being in the court system.)
One more thing - a new messaging that seems to be taking form on this issue. There are a few people on the pro-charter side that have taken to calling out the "McCleary-first crowd."
Color me confused: wouldn't that be every single public school parent in the state including charter school parents?
The other line is that the "McCleary-first crowd" only wants the money to keep the current system going and really doesn't care about students of color/FRL. And further, that we should fix our inequitable system first and THEN fully fund schools.
I don't see this as rational reasoning myself unless you believe every single school district in this state does not want to support students of color/FRL. I don't believe that at all. Seattle School district certainly isn't waiting (see their African-American males initiative) and neither is Highline (see Superintendent Enfield's revision of enrollment to Aviation High.)
Basically, there appears to be an attempt to take the equity mantle and put it on charter schools as the only real people who care. That just isn't true and I know that just from the readers who come to this blog. It's a pretty disturbing meme.