Wyoming K-12 education funding trial ends, one more step before verdict

CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Education Association’s lawsuit against the state for allegedly underfunding its public schools is speeding up, after a scheduled six-week bench trial ended two weeks early.

A WEA spokesperson speculated in a text message to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle that the court moved through witness testimony faster than expected. Closing arguments were heard in a Laramie County district courtroom on June 26, and now attorneys from both parties have 60 days to assemble their findings of fact and present them before District Judge Peter H. Froelicher.

Froelicher will give his final verdict at some point after the filings are submitted, but there’s no timeline for when that might happen.

The WEA filed the lawsuit against the state in 2022, claiming the Wyoming Legislature has not sufficiently funded its public school system, as required in the state Constitution.

It claims the Legislature has failed to “1) adjust the funding model for inflation and keep salaries competitive, 2) add funding for new components and increase funding for certain new components of the educational program, and 3) appropriately measure the adequacy of facilities,” according to court documents.

WEA Chief Legal Counsel Pat Hacker reiterated these claims during his closing arguments, according to a WEA news release.

“We know we’ve got several fires that started in our house,” Hacker said. “But we’re going to wait until it burns down to call the fire department.”

Eight school districts, including Wyoming’s largest K-12 district, Laramie County School District 1, have since joined the case as intervenors. Representatives from all eight districts gave testimony during the bench trial in June, starting with LCSD1.

LCSD1 representatives highlighted where gaps in state funding have disrupted education services and delayed school facility projects. Attorney Tim Bush, who represents the school districts, told the court on June 26 that school districts “have inadequate school facilities,” some of which are disparate, according to the news release.

Bush added that the state “failed to show a compelling state interest to justify the Legislature’s failure to fund an ongoing, cumulative (external cost adjustment).” External cost adjustments (ECAs) are used to increase funding to properly account for rising costs of inflation.

WEA government relations director Tate Mullen previously told the WTE the statutory model used by the Legislature to fund public education is “outdated” and doesn’t provide adequate funding for educational materials, technology or staff salaries.

Attorneys representing the state of Wyoming maintained their position in their closing arguments, denying all three of the WEA’s claims. State Attorney Mark Klaassen contended the state had “flood(ed) school districts with more resources than they could handle” at the conclusion of the 2010 Campbell cases, according to a WEA news release.

The state claimed in its pre-trial memo, filed April 29, that the Wyoming Legislature, until several years ago, “overfunded its consultant-recommended estimate of cost” and thus justified “making cost adjustments categorically unnecessary.”

Casper attorney Tim Stubson, also representing the state, argued “that Wyoming has exceptionally high spending per pupil,” according to the news release. Stubson added that the WEA did not meet the necessary burden of proof in its case.

The state claimed in its pre-trial memo its educational funding model “remains cost-based and adequate to deliver funding sufficient for districts to offer compensation necessary to recruit and retain a quality workforce.” It added that any demands from school districts for increased funding “are for student support and enhancements” not required to meet state standards in delivering good quality education.

“Whether and how much to fund such components are discretionary choices left to the Legislature,” state attorneys wrote in the pre-trial memo. They added there is no evidence to suggest harm to students or a district’s inability “to meet state standards at current operational funding levels.”

In regard to funding school facility projects, the state argued it is “more than meeting its obligations,” according to court documents. In 2023, a new third-party company, Bureau Veritas, was hired to put together an assessment list prioritizing school facility projects based on condition (the physical quality of a school building) and capacity (how full the classrooms are in a school).

Several school districts objected to the new list, which completely flipped prioritization for school projects in a 2016 assessment. Many school districts argued that higher-needs projects were inaccurately placed farther down the list.

The Wyoming Legislature refers to this assessment list, which is typically assembled once every four years, when determining funding allocations for school facility projects. The Legislature’s Select Committee on School Facilities assembled a last-minute, “unusual” budget request last year as the State Construction Department worked with districts to finalize budget requests for school projects.

The state acknowledged this dilemma in its pre-trial memo, and claimed that school districts that wished “to challenge the evaluation of any particular facility” had administrative remedies available to them that were not exhausted.

“While districts may be frustrated with the pace of budgeting for replacement or renovation of existing facilities,” state attorneys wrote in the memo, “the process is necessarily deliberate to ensure that remedies are fairly prioritized and most cost effective.”