WA State Supreme Court strikes a blow against equity in school funding | Opinion
The Washington State Constitution imposes a “paramount duty” on the state to provide ample education for all its children. The State Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that responsibility, most notably in the McCleary decision, but the high court has taken a confusingly divergent path regarding the thorny issue of capital construction costs.
It now falls to the Democrat-controlled Legislature to ensure that rural communities receive fair support when it comes to building and upgrading facilities. That will require rebalancing state funding and empowering voters to pass school bond measures with a simple majority.
The recent decision in Wahkiakum School District v. State of Washington is a slap to rural communities struggling to fund school building and maintenance. The court unanimously concluded that schools must pick up some of the cost of building new facilities, and if they can’t or won’t, then the state needn’t help. That ham-fisted approach might be legally sound, but it misses the nuances and falls short of the law’s spirit.
It is tough to understand why Washington students’ constitutional right to education does not encompass access to safe, adequate educational facilities. Clearly, it’s easier for students to learn in modern, safe buildings with sufficient space, safety features and temperature controls. It is even more chilling to consider how many of the state’s young people attend seismically unsafe buildings because they live in districts that can’t afford the upgrades.
The State Constitution provides for creating a common school construction fund. This fund grants local districts greater latitude in raising money for construction and outlines a shared funding responsibility between the state and communities.
But the ensuing decades have shown this model oversimplifies a complex issue and falls short of broader moral and constitutional obligations to kids. Voters’ intent in passing the 1966 constitutional amendment was not to penalize students in small towns.
The tough roads that led to Pasco’s narrow passage of a school bond in February and Kennewick’s approval of a bond in 2019, demonstrate the need for widespread reforms. But they managed to secure critical school funding through the existing system and are building schools and improving facilities, ensuring a safe, modern places to learn that will last for decades.
Yet some other school districts, especially in rural communities, are locked out of making similar investments when a supermajority of voters are unwilling or unable to pay more taxes for construction and upkeep.
The McCleary lawsuit arose from the stark inequality in educational resources. Wealthier communities have an inherent advantage. They can contribute more money, leading to superior educational experiences for their children.
While it is true that construction costs differ from operational costs, the reality remains that students in well-maintained buildings reap the benefits of a better learning environment. Ignoring this fact perpetuates the disparities in our education system, undermining the spirit of the constitutional mandate.
It is up to state lawmakers now to do the right thing. They should swiftly pass the recommendations of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal, who is now calling for more funding for rural schools and a reconsideration of funding formulas. Also, he argues the state should lower the threshold to pass school bonds from 60% to a simple majority, like most other things on the ballot.
That last idea might prove controversial, but it is imperative to ensure a fair chance to approve school bonds. With so much at stake for students and the quality of life in a community, a minority of voters shouldn’t be able to sink a bond measure that a majority wants.
It is high time Washington acknowledged rural districts’ challenges and provided them with the resources to offer equitable educational opportunities. We must ensure that the promise of equal education for all becomes a reality, regardless of a community’s size or economic standing. That goes for both the teaching and the building in which the teaching occurs.
