The Washington State Supreme Court recently issued a groundbreaking ruling relating to the State’s funding of its public school districts in Federal Way School District et al. v. State of Washington, et al., No. 80943-7 (November 12, 2009).
By way of background, through the Washington Basic Education Act of 1977, the Washington state legislature started a system of funding which improved teacher salaries, while still allowing for local salary variation. As a result, twenty years later, the gap between the highest and lowest teacher salaries in the state closed considerably. Nonetheless, there are still significant variations.
The Federal Way School District receives the lowest level of salary funding in the State of Washington. The District, along with certain parents, students and teachers, filed suit against the State alleging that the State’s disparate salary funding levels violates Articles I and IX of the Washington State Constitution. In sum, the State Constitution provides that the legislature must provide for “uniform public schools” and prohibits granting citizens privileges unequal to those allowed to other citizens.
After the King County Superior Court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment, the State petitioned for direct review by the Washington State Supreme Court. Upon review, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the State’s funding system does not violate the Washington State Constitution.
In reaching its decision, the Washington State Supreme Court recognized that Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution declares it is "the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders . . . ." Section 2 requires that the system of public schools be “uniform.” However, according to the Supreme Court, the term “uniform” in Title IX of the State Constitution “means that ‘every child shall have the same advantages and be subject to the same discipline as every other child.’” Critically, the Supreme Court found that the requirement is one for uniformity of educational programs—not uniformity in “the minutiae of funding.”
The Supreme Court also found that the parents, students and teachers joining the District as plaintiffs lacked justiciable claims, primarily because the funding at issue related to funding to districts in general, not teachers individually, and because the parents and students failed to show that the disparate funding resulted in the lack of an “ample provision” of education for the students.
To view the complete Supreme Court opinion, click here.
