State's Response on McCleary Question from Supreme Court
What the State says.
- In ESH13 2261 (Laws of 2009, ch. 548), the State established a framework for comprehensive reform of basic education and its funding methodology.SHB 2776 (Laws of 2010, ch. 236) quantified the policy aspects of those reforms by establishing specific formula enhancements and specific deadlines for implementing them, but SHB 2776 did not address compensation. The plan enacted in E2SSB 6195 (Laws of 2016, ch. 3) fills that gap by establishing specific steps and timelines for determining the compensation allocation levels necessary to implement the State's program of basic education and for taking legislative action to end reliance on local tax levies to fund that program.
Read together, E2SSB 6195 and SHB 2776 constitute a complete plan for implementing the education reforms the State enacted in ESHB 2261. (Editor's note: by my count they say this no less than 3 times in this brief.)
- Because the State has satisfied the requirements in the Court's January 2014 Order, there is no basis for continuing to hold the State in contempt and levying a daily sanction. The Court should dissolve the contempt order and terminate the daily sanction.
Yes, that is the first order of business (at least for the State.)
They go on to answer the Court's questions;
What remains to be done to timely achieve constitutional compliance?
- implementation of 2017-2018 K-3 class size reductions.
- adjust state expenditures for basic education under the prototypical school funding model to account for inflation, student enrollment and other variables.
- determine its cost to fully fund salaries needed for school districts to recruit and retain staff to implement the State's statutory program of basic education and provide that funding.
How much is it expected to cost?
The estimated cost to the State to fully fund salaries needed for school Seattle Schools Community Forum: State's Response on McCleary Question from Supreme Court:
