On August 30, plaintiffs in the McCleary case submitted their post-budget filing to the Supreme Court, and four amicus briefs were filed by other groups. (I wrote about these filings here.)
On Wednesday the plaintiffs in the McCleary case filed a response to the state’s post-2017 session report to the Court. Four other groups also filed briefs with the Court. None agreed with the state that it is now in compliance with the McCleary decision.
Today's episode covers the new tax revenues in the recently passed K-12 basic education funding law, which the State of Washington hopes will fulfill its obligations in the Supreme Court's McCleary ruling.
Click here to read our Special Report on the new K-12 basic education law.
A technical point about the regionalization factor that increases salary allocations for some school districts
In a Seattle Times column yesterday, Donna Gordon Blankinship asks, “Why can’t school funding be fair?” She argues, “The state needs ample enough funding — as the Washington Constitution requires — so every child has the same opportunity to succeed in life, no matter what ZIP code they live in.”
She uses Yakima as an example:
Several school districts have expressed concern about the state’s new method of funding public schools (as enacted in EHB 2242; here’s our report on the bill). As Melissa Santos reports in the News Tribune,
District officials in Tacoma, Olympia and Seattle say they’ll face budget deficits under the state’s new school funding plan, with some saying they’ll be worse off than if lawmakers had done nothing.
Today we're discussing the K-12 education funding bill passed by the state Legislature, in response to the state Supreme Court's McCleary ruling on basic education. In this episode we cover funding and policy changes; in the next episode we'll cover tax revenues.
To read our Special Report on the McCleary bill, click here.
In a new special report, we dig in to EHB 2242, the education funding bill passed by the Legislature this session. Briefly:
Taking vetoes into account, the budget doesn’t balance over four years (plus, a note on minimum wage disemployment effects)
The Legislature passed a 2017–19 operating budget that balanced over four years; an outlook prepared for the compromise indicated unrestricted ending fund balances of $985 million in 2017–19 and $42 million in 2019–21.
Tucked into the $43.7 billion operating budget are several requirements for studies and audits. They didn’t make it into our overview of the budget, but I thought some are worth highlighting:
In a new policy brief, we provide an overview of the 2017-19 operating budget, as passed by the Legislature on June 30. Briefly: