Big day yesterday with the state Supreme Court “impos[ing] a $100,000 per day penalty on the State” for not producing a plan to achieve, by 2018, full state funding of basic education (as laid out in Article IX, Section 1 of Washington’s constitution – the famous “paramount duty” provision).

The court ordered the amount of the penalty “to be held in a segregated account for the benefit of basic education.” It also “encourage[d] the governor to aid in resolving this matter by calling a special session.”

Reaction to the court order, as you can imagine, is mixed.

Gov. Jay Inslee responded soon after, noting that:

“the Supreme Court acknowledges that significant progress has been made toward meeting the state’s obligation to adequately fund basic education.”

and:

“The detailed plan the court demands in order to fulfill our constitutional obligation will be more complex and expensive than the significant steps we’ve already taken.”

The governor later sent out a statement saying he and legislative leaders had talked via conference call and agreed to meet in Seattle on Monday, sounding a note of caution about the work involved:

“There is much that needs to be done before a special session can be called. I will ask lawmakers to do that work as quickly as humanly possible…”

Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, gently corrected the court’s claim that K-3 class size reduction goals are unlikely to be met:

“It’s important to know that the phase-in plan in the budget we passed this year completely pays for the class size reductions called for in the McCleary order. The court recognized the work done by the Legislature in funding class size reductions, but seems to be concerned about the phase-in of lower class sizes.  There is some confusion in how the cost of this investment is described in various documents, and we will work with the court to clarify this. The attached chart [click here to view chart] shows the level of funded class size and those recommended by the task force the court refers to.”

Rep. Chad Magendanz, R-Issaquah, ranking Republican on the House Education Committee, told the Tacoma News Tribune a special session isn’t necessary, since lawmakers will return to Olympia for their regularly scheduled session in January:

“The Legislature will have accrued only about $21 million in fines by the time lawmakers are schedule to adjourn that session in March 2016, Magendanz noted. And state lawmakers plan to spend much more than that addressing the remaining parts of the McCleary decision, he said, including shifting the burden of paying teachers and other school staff from local school districts to the state.

” ‘I don’t see much of a downside to letting that money accrue, and then using it for whatever solution we come up with next year,’ said Magendanz.”

Speaking to Seattle’s KING-5 TV, Sen. Joe Fain, R-Auburn, indicated that the K-12 system’s problems took a long time to develop and will consequently take time to adequately solve:

“We agree with the court that we have an unconstitutional levy structure that needs to be addressed. But this unconstitutional levy structure has been in place for 30 years, and it’s created unconscionable pockets of poverty in school districts around the states of haves and have-nots for teachers and students who get less because of their zip code”

Also on KING-5, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn said he was “pleased” with the court order and supports a special session. He sounded some familiar themes, embracing tax increases of many possible kinds:

“It might be capital gains, it might be sales tax on internet sales. It could be a number of things, and lowering maybe property tax and having a discussion about income tax. It could be a whole array of things.”

Among other groups endorsing a special session (though not a specific revenue source) is the League of Education Voters:

“We encourage the Legislature to return to Olympia reenergized and willing to finish the job to fully, sustainably, and equitably funding public education in our state. They should accomplish this before the next regular legislative session, so that we can move onto the important work of implementation of these funds.”

There’s also the matter of the Supreme Court’s authority to impose a penalty, or fine. Per the Seattle Times:

“The court order ‘is not self executing,’ noted Jim Lobsenz, an attorney who specializes in constitutional law. He cited Article 8, Section 4 of the state constitution, which says money cannot be paid without a vote by legislators.

” ‘If the Legislature doesn’t appropriate money to pay the fine, then it won’t get paid,’ Lobsenz said in an email.”

On the other hand, from the Tacoma News Tribune:

“A Democratic lawmaker, Sen. David Frockt of Seattle, said the court remains within the bounds of its authority. Fines are the most common way for courts to address contempt, he said, and the court isn’t telling the Legislature exactly what measures to take to fund education.”

Finally, an editorial in today’s News Tribune has sharp words for the Supreme Court on a footnote in the order we mentioned yesterday:

“In an unfortunate and gratuitous footnote, the justices stated, ‘We offer no opinion on whether full state funding of basic education salaries must be accompanied by levy reform …’

“You sure could have fooled us. The court’s own 2012 McCleary decision dwelt at length on the unfairness of Washington’s patchwork levy system, especially the power it gives wealthy districts to outbid poor districts for high-caliber teachers.

“Politically, levy reform may be the hardest challenge the Legislature has faced in decades. To achieve it, lawmakers must tackle a host of entrenched special interests, including teachers unions and wealthy communities that are quite content with their power to siphon the best educators out of poor communities. In doing so, the Legislature could divert some local levy taxes to the state’s education property tax, which would be a big step toward full funding.

“The justices might have helped the cause of levy reform by re-emphasizing what they said in 2012. Failing that, they might have at least said nothing. Instead their inexplicable “no opinion” will actively undermine efforts to fix the greatest inequity in Washington public education.”

There’s much more to say and report on this topic. We’ll keep you updated on the major issues and events surrounding McCleary in the days and weeks ahead.