McCleary v. State
269 P.3d 227
Wash.2012Background
- McCleary challenges whether Washington’s funding for K-12 education satisfies Art. IX, §1, asserting funding is not ample, stable, or dependable.
- Court previously held Art. IX, §1 imposes a judicially enforceable duty to provide an amply funded basic education.
- Legislation over the years created a basic education program and shifted toward performance-based reforms (SHB 5953, ESHB 1209, ESHB 2261).
- Trial evidence shows old funding formulas do not align with costs to provide the constitutionally required education, necessitating funding reforms.
- State has relied on local levies and non-state funds to subsidize basic education, undermining ample funding from state sources.
- The judiciary retained jurisdiction to monitor implementation of reforms toward full funding by 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the meaning of education under Art. IX, §1? | McClearys/NEWS: education is a set of core knowledge required by the constitution. | State: education is defined by broad guidelines and legislative content within constitutional boundaries. | Education comprises the content defined by Seattle School District, ESHB 1209, and EALRs; not guaranteed outcomes. |
| Must funding for education come from state sources? | Funding should come from stable state sources, not local levies. | Local and federal funds can be part of funding mix if appropriate. | Ample funding must be provided by dependable, regular state sources; reliance on local levies is inadequate. |
| Do funding formulas correlate with actual costs of basic education? | Old formulas do not reflect actual costs to provide the constitutionally required education. | Formulas tied to statutory definitions of basic education; cost adequacy is a matter of policy. | There is a lack of correlation between funding formulas and actual costs; reforms needed. |
| What remedy should the court impose? | Court should require immediate, concrete steps to fund basic education. | Judicial restraint; allow legislature to implement reforms with retention of jurisdiction to monitor progress. | Court will retain jurisdiction to monitor reform implementation and progress toward full funding by 2018. |
| Is the State currently complying with Art. IX, §1? | Trial record shows ongoing underfunding of basic education. | Past reforms underway; reforms will achieve compliance over time. | State has not complied with its duty; underlying funding system is flawed and underfunded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle School District No. 1 v. State, 90 Wn.2d 476 (1978) (established judicial duty to define education and funding guarantees under Art. IX, §1; local levies insufficient for ample funding)
- Brown v. State, 155 Wn.2d 254 (2005) (constitutional duty context; need educational policy rationale in funding decisions)
- Federal Way School Dist. No. 210 v. State, 167 Wn.2d 514 (2009) (addressed state funding inadequacies and salaries; relevance to funding adequacy)