Last year the state Supreme Court found the Legislature in contempt for failure to provide a complete plan showing how it would comply with McCleary and implement its program of basic education. The Court held off on imposing sanctions until after the 2015 sessions. Yesterday the Legislature submitted its 2015 report to the Court on its progress. (Kriss and Mary talked about a draft of the report in last week’s InFocus episode.) The attorney general and the plaintiffs in the McCleary case submitted responses, and Superintendent Dorn filed an amicus brief. (All court documents related to the case can be found here, by the way.)

The Legislature’s report notes that in 2015 it enacted appropriations fulfilling its obligations: The operating budget fully funds the formula for materials, supplies and operating costs; it funds full implementation of all-day kindergarten; and it funds additional class size reductions in kindergarten through 3rd grade (this item is on track to be fully funded by the 2017-18 due date). Indeed, the Legislature appropriated significant new funds for education, and the report states that

the Legislature continues to engage in the policy review and consensus-building necessary to enact further basic education funding enhancements related to compensation and levy reliance, the final part of the State’s duty identified in the 2012 McCleary decision.

But, as the report notes, the Legislature did not enact a plan per the Court’s order.

The attorney general (AG) submits that “The State has made real and measurable progress in meeting its constitutional obligations to Washington’s schoolchildren.” Further, regarding the “contentious” compensation and local levy issues,

 (1) these are quintessentially legislative choices; (2) the 2015 Legislature took important steps towards resolving them; and (3) sufficient time remains before this Court’s 2018 deadline for the Legislature to reach agreement. The Court should not dictate these fundamental policy choices.

The AG argues that

The Court’s stated purpose in requiring a plan was to increase the pace of the State’s progress. The purpose has been fulfilled through the Legislature’s concrete actions and forward momentum, even though a written plan was not submitted. Imposing a punitive sanction for failing to produce a plan, the purpose of which has been satisfied, could derail that momentum.

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, ask the Court to impose sanctions. A few of their suggestions are: Keep the state from acting on any other legislation until it complies, and invalidate all tax exemptions authorized or re-authorized after Jan. 2012.

Superintendent Dorn acknowledges that the Legislature “did make some progress” during the sessions but says the progress is not “satisfactory.” He suggests that the Court should

issue an order enjoining spending from the General Fund at some date prior to the next regular legislative session (for example, October 1, 2015), unless the Legislature returns in special session and makes substantial progress in adopting the reforms . . . .

The spending cuts would be based on the contingency planning state agencies did in the case of a government shutdown this year.

Part of the plaintiffs’ argument is that there was no $1.3 billion increase in funding related to McCleary, because:

The State determined the maintenance level amount for K-12 funding in the 2015-17 biennium was $19.5 billion. It then adopted a budget with a K-12 funding amount of under $18.2 billion. That’s not a $1.3 billion increase. It’s a $1.3 billion decrease.

(Emphasis in original.) While the raw numbers are accurate, it’s only because of the funny accounting related to Initiative 1351. Funding for I-1351 is included in that maintenance level number, and it is subsequently removed as a policy change — so the maintenance level cited above is skewed high. If I-1351 funding is removed, the indicated maintenance level is $17.470 billion. Also, note that these are total spending numbers for K-12, including many programs that are outside of basic education and McCleary. The $1.3 billion increase is specifically related to McCleary.

The plaintiffs also imply that the state is obligated to reduce class sizes in grades 4-12. They cite the Quality Education Council’s January 2010 report, which recommended class size reductions in grades K-3. Although the report notes that the QEC discussed also reducing class sizes in grades 4-12, those reductions were not recommended. Rep. Hunter also wrote recently that the Court is not requiring class size reductions in grades 4-12. And the AG makes the point that I-1351 “has not been litigated or briefed in this case, it has not been identified at any time as part of the remedy necessary to cure a constitutional infirmity, and it is not relevant to any response to the Court’s order of contempt.”