Give former state Sen. Jim Kastama credit for his op-ed in today’s Seattle Times. Kastama says what few others have said publicly. He takes a look at the legislative history of ESHB 2261, the legislation setting school funding goals that have become the state Supreme Court’s standard for full funding of basic education in the McCleary decision. And he concludes the legislation is not affordable.

The linchpin for the court’s mandate came in 2009, when ESHB 2261 set out to redefine our state’s definition of basic education. The bill was first introduced as a three-page document, but soon ballooned to more than 60 pages, increasingly becoming more prescriptive.

For example, amendments expanded the number of credits necessary to graduate by 20 percent, mandated all-day kindergarten, and increased instructional time from 1,000 to 1,080 hours a year. Even a more prescriptive model for funding schools was adopted.

He notes that lawmakers were assured that the legislation was a goal, not a mandate binding on future legislatures. That is, until the Court set them in place. Mistakenly, he asserts as he urges lawmakers to do what lawmakers can do, amend legislation.

…modifying ESHB 2261 should be an option on the table — keeping those parts that are worthy, while jettisoning those that are not worthy or not cost-effective.

It is predictable that the Supreme Court will take a dim view of this approach. The justices will no doubt see it as a reversal on the state’s promise to adequately fund education. In doing so, however, I would caution them in their zeal to control the legislative process.

Well, the court has shown itself willing to intervene, taking the unprecedented step of holding the Legislature in contempt.

We’ve pointed out before that McCleary is far from the only budget challenge facing legislators. And that was before the class size reduction initiative 1351 passed. House Ways and Means Chair Ross Hunter talks about the 2015-17 budget posing a high degree of difficulty. Others may agree, but see no room for compromise on either McCleary or class size reduction.

It’s early yet, but it’s just possible Kastama’s suggestion will gain currency over time. What do you think?