Yesterday the attorney general submitted the state’s post-budget report on school funding to the state Supreme Court. He argues:

• The state is fully compliant with the McCleary decision,
• The court should lift the contempt order and stop the daily penalties as of March 27,
• The court should allow the state to spend the funds in the new account the Legislature created to hold the sanctions, and
• The court “should relinquish its retained jurisdiction and terminate review.”

The AG also argued that the state was in full compliance last July. We thought last year that a good case was made, and there’s even more reason to expect an end to the case this year.

In November, the court said that it was satisfied with what the Legislature had achieved—except for the fact that salary increases were phased in over two years. This year, the Legislature fully funded those increases in school year 2018–19, as required by the court. The Legislature also made other enhancements to basic education, and it created the dedicated McCleary penalty account to hold the fines that have been accruing in the case since Aug. 2015.

The Legislature’s report begins on page 25 of the AG’s submission. It notes that state funding for public schools increased from $13.4 billion in 2011–13 to $22.8 billion in 2017–19 and is planned to increase to $26.7 billion in 2019–21. All the figures in the report include funds from the dedicated McCleary penalty account. And, if I’m reading the table on page 34 correctly, they are an understatement. They assume that professional learning days are delayed (saving $27.1 million in 2017–19 and $75.8 million in 2019–21), but Gov. Inslee vetoed that delay.

One potential issue is that the $105.2 million that was transferred to the dedicated McCleary penalty account from the general fund was fully appropriated by the Legislature for salaries, the special education multiplier, and regionalization factors. A footnote in the court’s November order said, “Sanctions must remain separate and unexpended.” The AG’s memo argues, “The Court should . . . allow the sanction funds to be expended to support basic education in Washington, as contemplated in ESSB 6032.”