What if the WA Supreme Court Just Shut ALL Schools Down?
There's the provocative question that Jen Graves over at The Stranger Slog asks.
She's asking about how to properly fund our schools and gives an interesting history about how it happened in New Jersey (which funds their schools very well) and finally got that state to an income tax.
It was something I noticed in a Slate story from earlier this summer about our situation here in Washington, and it bears repeating: "When, in 1976, New Jersey was in a similar situation [to Washington], the Supreme Court shut down the schools for eight days. The fruits of that conflict remain with New Jerseyites to this day, for the need to fund schools more fairly is what led New Jersey in 1976 to adopt a state income tax for the first time."
It made me wonder the following things.
1. Does the Washington State Supreme Court have the authority to shut down schools across the state right now?
2. Is that story about New Jersey really true? Did New Jersey pass the state's first-ever (and enduring) income tax because it had no other way to get its schools up and running after its Supreme Court put its foot down?
3. Has the income tax solved the problem of chronic school underfunding in New Jersey?
4. If the answer to all those questions is yes, then why isn't the Washington State Supreme Court shutting down our schools to force the hand of the Governor and Legislature right now?
I made a few calls, and guess what? The answer to those first three questions is pretty much yes.
She asked lawyer Thomas A. Ahearne, counsel on McCleary, about this issue:
I put the questions to Ahearne. What will the McCleary plaintiffs do next? And does the pressure point of the Seattle strike help motivate them at all?
"I think the Supremes are going to give the Governor and the Legislature a couple months to do what they’re going to do," he said. "My guess is they’re not going to do anything, and the Supremes will ask both sides [the plaintiffs in McCleary and the State] to submit something to the court saying, 'So, how’s it going?' and our response will be that it’s going nowhere, and the court should impose the heavy sanctions like the ones you saw with the New Jersey Supreme Court."
She really gets down to business here:
One thing working in schools' favor in Washington is the unusual strength of the Washington Constitution in spelling out that education is "the paramount duty"—the, not a paramount duty—of the state.
In other words, our state's constitution says that nothing else should be funded if schools are not.
"A lot of states have education clauses in their constitution; none is as strong as Washington’s," Ahearne said.
So what do we do now? Wait and see? What about the strikers? What about their students?
Ahearne's advice to fellow parents of public-school students:
1. Support the strike.
2. Take that support further, and appreciate and respect and thank teachers more. They deserve it.
3. "Goddamnit, get the legislators to start amply funding the schools."
Parents, get your freakout on. While supporting the strikers, don't support the idea that our kids should be out of school. This is a very good exercise in civic engagement education, and it's terrific that we're talking to our kids about this. But we need to talk, too, and angrily, to those who can make change happen: Elected politicians.
Even if all parents of public-school children voted in Washington, they'd still be a vast minority, Ahearne told me. But the right to an education is, as some have pointed out, a civil rights battle.
The people whose rights you're fighting for in this case? The kids? Not one of them can vote, so this is going to be up to the rest of all of us.
She's asking about how to properly fund our schools and gives an interesting history about how it happened in New Jersey (which funds their schools very well) and finally got that state to an income tax.
It was something I noticed in a Slate story from earlier this summer about our situation here in Washington, and it bears repeating: "When, in 1976, New Jersey was in a similar situation [to Washington], the Supreme Court shut down the schools for eight days. The fruits of that conflict remain with New Jerseyites to this day, for the need to fund schools more fairly is what led New Jersey in 1976 to adopt a state income tax for the first time."
It made me wonder the following things.
1. Does the Washington State Supreme Court have the authority to shut down schools across the state right now?
2. Is that story about New Jersey really true? Did New Jersey pass the state's first-ever (and enduring) income tax because it had no other way to get its schools up and running after its Supreme Court put its foot down?
3. Has the income tax solved the problem of chronic school underfunding in New Jersey?
4. If the answer to all those questions is yes, then why isn't the Washington State Supreme Court shutting down our schools to force the hand of the Governor and Legislature right now?
I made a few calls, and guess what? The answer to those first three questions is pretty much yes.
She asked lawyer Thomas A. Ahearne, counsel on McCleary, about this issue:
I put the questions to Ahearne. What will the McCleary plaintiffs do next? And does the pressure point of the Seattle strike help motivate them at all?
"We don't have any plans right this second," Ahearne told me, explaining that you have to be summoned to the Supreme Court—you don't just show up and order them around.Here's what Ahearne predicts will happen.
"I think the Supremes are going to give the Governor and the Legislature a couple months to do what they’re going to do," he said. "My guess is they’re not going to do anything, and the Supremes will ask both sides [the plaintiffs in McCleary and the State] to submit something to the court saying, 'So, how’s it going?' and our response will be that it’s going nowhere, and the court should impose the heavy sanctions like the ones you saw with the New Jersey Supreme Court."
She really gets down to business here:
One thing working in schools' favor in Washington is the unusual strength of the Washington Constitution in spelling out that education is "the paramount duty"—the, not a paramount duty—of the state.
In other words, our state's constitution says that nothing else should be funded if schools are not.
"A lot of states have education clauses in their constitution; none is as strong as Washington’s," Ahearne said.
So what do we do now? Wait and see? What about the strikers? What about their students?
Ahearne's advice to fellow parents of public-school students:
1. Support the strike.
2. Take that support further, and appreciate and respect and thank teachers more. They deserve it.
3. "Goddamnit, get the legislators to start amply funding the schools."
Parents, get your freakout on. While supporting the strikers, don't support the idea that our kids should be out of school. This is a very good exercise in civic engagement education, and it's terrific that we're talking to our kids about this. But we need to talk, too, and angrily, to those who can make change happen: Elected politicians.
Even if all parents of public-school children voted in Washington, they'd still be a vast minority, Ahearne told me. But the right to an education is, as some have pointed out, a civil rights battle.
The people whose rights you're fighting for in this case? The kids? Not one of them can vote, so this is going to be up to the rest of all of us.
Comments
N by NW
no
- IAM
Taxed poor
---
Everything else in the state budget should be analyzed and dissected to re-determine appropriate levels of funding given different timelines and expected needs. Many millions could likely be saved. SPS could also trim district administrative "overhead". Then, and only then, should new sources of funding be considered.
Once an income tax is established, there is only one direction it will go over the years. For selfish reasons for me and my family, I'd really like to NOT have an income tax and believe that needs to be reserved as a measure of last resort after exhausting ALL other options. Also, introducing an income tax without revising all the rest of the taxes to be less punishing to those not as well off would be irresponsible and immoral. <-- all this is an even bigger, more controversial mess than education and would take even longer to resolve than finding more money in what we already have.
Parent of 2 in Seattle Schools
Wavering
Where's state?
If the teachers received a raise from Seattle, then why have they and their supporters consistently stated that they haven't receieved a raise in years, not to mention that all but capped teachers have been receiving step raises all along?
Who is SEA negotiating with? Seattle or the state?
--Frustrated with both sides (but shifting)
Teachers have not received a COLA in years. That's from the state.
Some teachers did receive a small increase, like Seattle, and that's from the district. However, for most teachers, that small increase was pretty much negated by increases in health care costs and by general cost of living increase. For teachers who have maxed out at their 16+ years MA +90/PhD step (or whatever it is in Seattle), they did not receive an increase unless they are getting some form of longevity stipend like some districts do ($500/year I saw on someone's district salary page) that might have increased. Meanwhile, Seattle rent has doubled or tripled, buying a house is not possible unless you work for Amazon or one of the tech companies, and both gas prices and traffic have increased, meaning long, expensive commutes if teachers live farther out.
CT
http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/updatedcertsalary13.pdf
I am also very frustrated at how hard this has been to find.
Over it
Yes, I know that the teachers are paying more for healthcare so that district raise got negated. And here comes Maureen with TRI which is yet another part of the puzzle.
"No more pencils! No more books!
No more teachers' income tax!"
How about this for a compromise: teachers accept the district offer plus:
1) a promise to sweeten it later if state funding to the district rises above a certain amount (somewhat like revenue sharing in pro sports); and
2) a promise to put a special property tax levy on the next ballot to provide the additional pay increase that the district refuses to agree to now, if state funding doesn't come through.
Seattle voters seem to approve everything that comes on the ballot, so it seems like a safe bet for the teachers, but would relieve the district of any claim to budget anxiety.
http://budgetandpolicy.org/reports/a-parmount-duty-funding-education-for-mccleary-and-beyond
I love the words of the Washington State Constitution guarantee:
“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders,"
Pretty unequivocal, and, I agree, shutting down Washington State Government until they comply with the McCleary ruling would be an idea I could get behind (not just the schools; I'd like to see a shut down of, say, transportation projects).
zb
And, the requirement for a supermajority makes passing these levies difficult.
zb
New Jersey has property taxes that make one's sphincter clench (my cousin and her family live in Franklin Lakes), and that's where a lot of the generous funding for schools comes from.
This is a long way of saying that one can't advocate for a new tax in good conscience, without a holistic review of all existing public revenue and what it pays for.
Many people here (including Melissa, and this is perhaps the only thing I disagree with her on), seem to think if we just add more taxes we can pay for things like education. State income tax to the rescue! But every economist will tell you that it's not that easy.
Everything has tradeoffs. When you ratchet up your taxes above neighboring states (or countries), it doesn't take a lot of clear thinking to understand that some amount of businesses/employers will move, or die. It doesn't happen immediately (though some low-margin businesses may shut down quickly), but when they do ultimately move, it's not something you can undo by quickly tweaking the taxes back and forth. Reputation counts.
As businesses shut down, it's not just the business tax revenue we lose, but because they are employers, we lose all the tax revenue from all their employees that lose their jobs as well. Some may leave the state, with or separately from the company, which is bad enough, but some may stay here and present an economic drag as well.
Taxes are necessary to provide many things, of which education is just one, but there is no infinite well to keep dipping into. Raising taxes higher and higher results in lower and lower marginal gains until you cross a threshold and end up with actual losses if taken too far. You don't have to look far to see this happening in other states and countries around the world.
And your sphincter clenching comment gave me the biggest smile of the day. :-)