State Superintendent Considering Lawsuit Over McCleary

Crosscut is reporting that Washington State superintendent Randy Dorn is thinking about suing the state over McCleary funding.  From Crosscut:
“I would like it to be before the end of session,” Dorn said in an interview late last week, referring to the current session of the Legislature.   Dorn added that he had been trying to put together some kind of legal action on the issue since before the start of the legislative session.
That's pretty lickety-split, considering the session ends in early March.
The central focus of his legal action would be to get the state Supreme Court to rule on the legality of continuing to use local levies to supplement teacher and staff pay. The court has already ruled that paying for essential parts of education is a state duty, not a local one. But local districts continue to collect levies that pay for basic parts of public school operations.
As it stands, legal experts have called it an open question whether the McCleary decision rules out using levies to pay teacher and staff salaries. A ruling could block the planning or putting forward of further levies covering basic costs, which would set a hard deadline for when schools would start running out of money. That, in turn, could force the Legislature to act, Dorn said.
The Legislature is probably going to give this a collective yawn.

I do think Dorn could be aided by the Supreme Court, though. If I were a justice on the Supreme Court and saw the truly weak lack of progress on McCleary AND the full-court press on trying to pass (yet-another) unconstitutional charter bill, well, I'd be pretty aggravated. See: Kansas Supreme Court for possible choices of things that the Washington State Supreme Court can (and should) do.

Comments

Charlie Mas said…
Do I have this right? The idea is that Randy Dorn will bring a suit to prohibit school districts from spending local levy money on basic education expenses, including teacher salaries. Since this prohibition was sort of embedded in the McCleary decision, the Court could impose an injunction or something, which would, of course, throw school districts into chaos and, thereby, compel the legislature to act.

Of course, if the legislature obstinately failed to act then we would just have school districts in chaos and without the funding needed to pay teacher salaries.
2/23/16, 6:02 AM
Watching said…
I agree with you, Charlie. Filing a lawsuit and prohibiting school districts from spending local levy money has the capacity to tie the hands of the district, and we can't count on the legislature.

At one point, the state wanted to decrease Seattle's levy inflator, which would mean a loss of $6.1M. I don't know if the legislature lifted the cap.

2/23/16, 9:05 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, gr...
Read more

Education News Roundup

From the ever-amusing Washington Policy Center : Vouchers are Pell Grants for students under 18.  Vouchers are no different than Pell Grants or GI benefits, except the money goes to the families of students younger than age 18.  Except they are. Pell Grants were created to help needy students and that's not really the goal of the voucher program.  The Pell grant website does have a couple of great studies on why low-income students drop out before finishing their higher ed and what makes a difference.
Read more