The state Supreme Court has unanimously imposed sanctions on the Legislature for failing to comply with the Court’s order to submit a plan showing how the Legislature would fully fund basic education. (For background on the filings in the McCleary case since the end of the session, see here.)

The Legislature will have to pay $100,000 per day for each day it remains in violation of the Jan. 9, 2014 court order. The funds will be held in a segregated account for basic education. Further, “the court encourages the governor to aid in resolving this matter by calling a special session.”

The order notes that

It is not within this court’s authority to enact legislation, appropriate state funds, or levy taxes. Rather, in accordance with its obligation to enforce the commands of the Washington Constitution, and pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction over this matter to ensure steady progress towards constitutional compliance, the court has only required, and still requires, the State to present its plan for achieving compliance by its own deadline of 2018.

The Court acknowledges that the Legislature made “significant progress” in the 2015-17 budget. Pupil transportation is fully funded; goals for materials, supplies, and operating costs are met; and funding for all-day kindergarten is ahead of schedule.

However, the Court faults the Legislature for its progress on meeting the goals for K-3 class size reduction. (Note that the Court’s order does not expect the Legislature to reduce class sizes for grades 4-12, as plaintiffs had argued.) Additionally, it questions whether the Legislature has provided sufficient capital funds for the additional classrooms that will be required to reduce class sizes and provide all-day kindergarten.

On personnel costs, the Court writes that “the State has wholly failed to offer any plan for achieving constitutional compliance.” Further, the state “must do something in the matter of compensation that will achieve full state funding of public education salaries.” But, in a footnote in the order, the Court notes that “local levy reform is not part of” the 2014 order. “We offer no opinion on whether full state funding of basic education salaries must be accompanied by levy reform . . . .”