Comments on: Does today’s ruling on school funding really matter?

By: Kathryn Simpson

Kathryn Simpson — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:36:30 +0000

Catherine,

I didn’t see your comment until just now. It must have been in the moderation holding queue.

Thank you for all you have done to support public education. Did you attend the post-decision briefing today?

By: Registered Voter

Registered Voter — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:39:52 +0000

“This is an election year – everyone needs to ask the legislative candidates what they’re going to do to comply with the Constitution they take an oath to uphold.”

Many of us have been working on educational issues in this state for decades, whether or not there is a Constitutional opinion or election year. We’ll keep at it.

By: Kathryn Simpson

Kathryn Simpson — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:33:24 +0000

It was a typo? “Untilities” ARE currently covered by state apportionment.

Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
(stuck in DC for the Blizzard of 2010)

By: Colleen Smidt

Colleen Smidt — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:46:23 +0000

Opps spelled utilities wrong. Need more coffee….

By: Colleen Smidt

Colleen Smidt — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:45:43 +0000

Like actually paying for untilites? That is only one of the things they do not fund that always floors me.

By: Kathryn Simpson

Kathryn Simpson — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:59:43 +0000

Another significant “game changer” in Judge Erlick’s decision was where he said that “Funding must be based as closely as reasonably practicable on the actual costs of providing such programs of basic education.”

This would seem to indicate that he doesn’t consider apportionment constitutional and the State will need to come up with a model that more accurately reflects actual costs.

By: Catherine Ahl

Catherine Ahl — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:39:40 +0000

I was in the courtroom this morning, representing the League of Women Voters of WA which has been a member of NEWS since it was formed six years ago. For the first time since I moved here in 1995, I have hope for our children. This is an election year – everyone needs to ask the legislative candidates what they’re going to do to comply with the Constitution they take an oath to uphold.
Catherine Ahl

By: Registered Voter

Registered Voter — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:54:45 +0000

Yes and no. It’s essentially an unfunded mandate. There are no penalties for non-compliance, and this isn’t the first (or last) opinion which establishes parameters for electeds. Besides, if the Legislature and State cry broke and try to raise taxes only to be met by yet another Tim Eyman‎ initiative, it does indeed boil down to yet another game.

Besides, this isn’t just about money. Until there is a real commitment towards overhauling and/or improving many other aspects of the educational system beyond funding, there’s essentially no accountability beyond throwing money at it. Also, communities played a valuable and more direct role in their schools with levies. To
what degree will this be diminished if pushed up to the State?

Finally, we haven’t heard whether or not there will be an appeal. As with many things, time will tell…

By: Kathryn Simpson

Kathryn Simpson — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:21:08 +0000

I think the ruling was emphatic enough that the State will need to move up it’s timetable or start prioritizing better or both.

And I’m stealing the “Legislation At Hope” poke! Very funny!!

By: Colleen Smidt

Colleen Smidt — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:22 +0000

True Kathryn, but what was said here…

The judge did not set a specific timeline for reform but urged the Legislature to proceed with real and measurable progress to establish the cost of basic education and find a stable way to pay for it.

Indicates more bark than bite. The use of the word “urged” is not confidence building. Issuing the lunatics in Olympia an open ended invitation to set the rules and the timeline to fix this mess is financial insanity.

Like it or not, the state of Education in 2018 will not look anything like it does now even if the legislature does not lift a finger between now and then. You and I both realize it is on a crash course well before then for many districts.

Do you know what are the appeal options to this ruling? There is always an appeal whenever possible.

Your right the label “game” is insulting, but let’s keeps calling a spade a spade.

Or to be currently PC…”Legislation At Hope”. I’m just having some fun with you.