I wondered this a long time ago.

Earlier this month, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a nine-page evaluation of the legislature's fulfillment of its obligation to meet its consititutional and paramount duty to amply fund public education–which as a reminder, is what the ruling in McCleary, et al. v State of Washington concluded back in 2012.

You have to wonder what the Supreme Court will, or even can, do if the legislature doesn't take appropriate action. Even though several of our legislators believe that the Court has overstepped its authority, as this article from the Seattle Times mentions, there are some other states where the highest court issued orders to their state legislature to take action to rectify some discordance. From the Times (linked above):

The reality is, no one knows exactly what the court would do.

Precedents exist in other states. In July 1976, the state Supreme Court in New Jersey ordered the schools to be closed until the Legislature appropriated more funding for schools.

New Jersey lawmakers went into session that summer and enacted the state’s first income tax to comply with the court’s demands, said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, in Newark, N.J.

In 2005, the state Supreme Court in Kansas indicated in a court order that it could close schools if lawmakers did not provide more money for schools. The Legislature went into special session and approved the funding.

But now the Kansas state Supreme Court and lawmakers are in another battle over school funding that has yet to play out.

There are also threats of the Court holding the legislature in contempt or even fining individual legislators.

I am not optimistic; I am also not a big believer in using threats to leverage (which is why I agree with Kristin about our system's test obsession). What I do believe in is going straight to the source, so no matter what position you eventually take, make sure you start here.