The attorney general’s office has responded to the state Supreme Court’s July 14 order in the McCleary case. No big surprises here — the brief argues the contempt order should be dissolved and the sanctions ended. The AG said as much in previous communications with the Court this year.

But the AG’s new brief does have some interesting points, in response to the specific questions the Court asked in its order:

• Funding public schools will cost the state $19.7 billion in 2017-19 (up from $18.2 billion in 2015-17). The portion of that spending related to McCleary enhancements is $4.1 billion in 2017-19 (up from $2.8 billion in 2015-17). (See the table in Appendix A for details.)
• That doesn’t include salaries, because the cost for the state to take over all funding of basic education salaries is an unknown at this point (but the information is being collected, as per E2SSB 6195). The brief notes, “Prior reports have provided a range of cost estimates, but these estimates generally included new policy proposals that would expand the State’s statutory program of basic education.”
• The AG writes that state law allows districts to provide supplemental pay to teachers, but not for basic education: “If school districts are in compliance with RCW 28A.400.200(4), then the additional salary paid through supplemental contracts is not the State's responsibility, because it is not compensation for implementing the State's program of basic education.” And if districts are not in compliance, we need to know to what extent before the state’s additional responsibility can be determined. (This gets at Superintendent Dorn’s lawsuit against several districts in the state.)
• To the Court’s question of how the state will fund compliance with McCleary, the AG writes, “This is a decision for the 2017 Legislature and cannot be answered at this time.”
• The McCleary deadline is 2018. The Court asked what the specific date is, and the AG writes that it is Sept. 1, 2018. (See pages 5-8 for the reasoning.)
• There’s a discussion of capital costs on pages 19-25. “The Legislature has not defined capital construction as part of the program of basic education and the contours of the shared responsibility and decision-making concerning school facilities have not been part of this case.”
• Finally, there’s an interesting discussion on whether one Legislature can bind another on pages 38-41. “The State respectfully maintains that this Court’s decisions limit the State’s ability to adopt a plan committing to specific appropriations for a future biennium.” Additionally, “no ‘plan’ it enacts can commandeer the appropriating power of a future Legislature.”

For background and more on McCleary, see our recent report.