By Tom

After enjoying Mark’s take on the recent Washington State Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, you now get to endure mine. Sometimes two views on the same topic is a good thing. Sometimes it’s not.

First the good: The decision itself was a win, however sloppy. The State Supreme Court ruled that the State Legislature has to follow the State Constitution and make ample provisions for public education, which according to the constitution, is its “paramount duty.” The suit was filed five years ago on behalf of four students, Carter and Kelsey McCleary and Robbie and Haley Venema. (Carter and Robbie are still in school; their sisters have since graduated.) (There was a kid named Steve Venema in my 8th grade PE class. I wonder if they're related.) The two families were joined in the suit by a large coalition of educational organizations, including over a dozen school districts and the Washington Education Association. The plaintive in the suit was the State of Washington. The case was actually decided last year, but the state appealed it to the Supreme Court, which made the 7-2 decision last Thursday. The two dissenters included Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, who, with no apparent sense of irony, thought it best to let the Legislature take care of the problem.

And the Bad: Six years. That’s how long the Court gave the Legislature to solve the problem. Six whole years. In six years, all the McCleary and Venema kids will be out of school and pursuing their careers. In six years every legislator and judge in Washington will either be replaced or reelected. In six years, every kid in my class will be in high school, replaced by kids who are currently learning to talk and use the toilet. In six years, the computer sitting in your lap will have been replaced at least once. In six years, you will have had to repaint your house. And in six years, the New Husky Stadium will be five years old, which means that it will have been used about thirty times, by football players that represent a student body from all over the country, whose out-of-state tuition will be used to send Washington students to community college. The Court gave the State six years to do what I can say in six words: Increase revenue to pay for education.

And now the Ugly: This, the Seattle Times’ take on the decision. I’m not sure why, but in the last few years, the relationship between Washington’s teachers (especially their union) and the leading daily newspaper has gone from chilly to cold to disrespectful to downright hostile. This is a new low for the Times; where they apparently blame the education funding crisis on collective bargaining, teacher strikes and our cushy healthcare plans. Ouch.

Will this decision make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not anytime soon, unless 2018 is your idea of soon.

But hey; a win's a win!

By Mark

You've probably read about it: The Washington State Supreme court stated in an 85-page opinion that the State of Washington has not met it's constitutional obligation to fully fund its public schools. (Here's the actual majority ruling in the case, officially McCleary v. State.) 

So now what? The court intends to "keep a close eye" on the legislature. I guess I need help understanding what this means and how this serves as an example of the system at work. So, the state has until 2018 to comply. If they don't comply, then what?

The same kinds of rulings are appearing elsewhere, as pointed out in a blog I read frequently, where accomplished teachers in California talk state and national ed policy. I learned there at InterACT, through a post by David B. Cohen, about Lobato v. State of Colorado wherein the court similarly ruled that the state had failed to meet its obligation. Cohen's post is worth a read, as he distills out the critical language in the Colorado court's ruling. Like many of us, Cohen is still watching Colorado, since its state school board has now voted in favor of appealing that court ruling. 

I'm sure more certain information about "what next" will manifest soon. (Actually… who am I kidding, the waters are certain to get a whole lot muddier before they get any clearer.)

What do you know? What are your thoughts? What is the next line in our conversation about this important ruling? My first step: put those student essays down for a few minutes to pore over our State Court's opinion; I hope to find some compelling language…we'll see.