The state Supreme Court will hear arguments in the McCleary school funding case today at 10. I thought I’d pull some of our writing on McCleary into one post, for those wanting some background reading.

In 2016 we wrote a report on the case, the history of school funding in Washington, and the legislative response to date: McCleary Deadline Approaching, But How Long Will the Solution Last?

In a report earlier this year, we looked at the new school funding plan and the total spending response to McCleary: Has the State Finally Closed the Book on McCleary?

Additionally, here are several blog posts on the various reports and briefs filed with the Court since the end of the 2017 legislative session:

• Legislature, AG to Court: McCleary response is complete
• New McCleary briefs argue Legislature’s fix doesn’t go far enough
• An area of agreement between the State and plaintiffs in the McCleary case
• New OSPI analysis of education bill’s tax and funding impacts

In our 2017 report, we wrote that the state has made a good case that it has complied with McCleary. For me, perhaps the most important point the attorney general has made is that plaintiffs’ argument is based on the “premise that the ‘actual cost’ of basic education is defined by school districts’ expenditures and must be funded without constraint by the State.”  

Education is the paramount duty of the state, but it isn’t the state’s only duty.