Are salary disparities in school districts unconstitutional?
Argument recap: Federal Way School District 210, et. al, v. State of Washington, et. al., No. 80943-7.
The question in this case, argued before the state Supreme Court yesterday, is whether the Legislature is constitutionally compelled to equalize state allocations to school districts for school employee salaries. In 2006, the Federal Way School District, along with district employees and students, sued the state, arguing that funding disparities violate the duty of a “general and uniform” school system.
Education funding is a complex formula of federal, state, and local funds that are distributed to individual school districts. King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey ruled that the state’s funding model violates the “general and uniform” duty, and violated the state’s equal protection clause by paying similarly-situated school employees differently. Judge Heavey pointed out the disparities of state allocations among districts for the 2007-08 school year:
- Classified staff: $30,111 to $35,227
- Administrative staff: $54,405 to $80,807
- Teaching staff: $32,746 to $34,612
Federal Way is at the bottom classification in all three salary allocation ranges.
Judge Heavey also took note of the per-pupil funding received from the state. He compared eight districts, which ranged from $2,766 to $3,707 (Federal Way received $3,005 per student).
There are two educational provisions of the state constitution at play here.
Art. IX, Sec. 1. PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.
Art. IX, Sec. 2. PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.
Senior Assistant Attorney General David Stolier, arguing for the State, said that where the “ample provision” for basic education is met, variances in school funding allocations are of no constitutional significance. The constitutional duty is to create a common education system, not to guarantee precisely equal funding to every district. The “general and uniform” requirement, he argues, deals with the structure of education: uniform academic learning requirements, graduation standards, teacher licensing standards, uniform discipline standards, and other elements. “We’ve got a structure so that a student in Nine Mile Falls, who transfers to Olympia, is going to get reasonably the same education.”
Interestingly, despite the funding disparities, student performance in Federal Way is well above the state average, which Justice James Johnson took note of. Mr. Stolier pointed out that there is great debate within the education community about the correlation between funding and educational opportunity.
Justice Debra Stephens, who mentioned that she served on a school board for 12 years, asked Mr. Stolier where the trial judge went wrong. “I think the trial court saw something that needed fixing, and did not trust the legislature to do it,” he said.
Buzz Porter, arguing for the school district, asked the court to uphold Judge Heavey’s order. “Then what?” asked Justice Stephens. She cited separation of powers concerns, and objected to a school system run by the courts, so if the court were to rule for the district, what would the remedy be? Mr. Porter said it’s not the job of the court to tell the legislature how to run schools. Only if the legislature failed to act would the court be required to provide a remedy. But it is within the court’s duty, he said, to explain what the state constitution means and requires.
Responding to the state’s argument, Mr. Porter argued that “you can’t divorce” Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX of the state constitution. The state’s obligation, he said, is not just ample funding, but ample funding within a general and uniform system. Noting the complexity of school funding formulas, Justice Stephens asked if it was a mistake to simply focus on per-pupil spending or district salaries, which are pieces of the entire school funding pie. “I wonder if your argument robs from Peter to pay Paul – if we equalize this, aren’t we creating non-uniformity in other categories of state funding because of the variances in district size? … We’re really talking about putting the entire system of educational funding on the table, aren’t we?”
Justice Madsen asked what would happen to local control. “There are wealthier districts that want to have enhancements for their schools. If we put too fine a point on uniformity, don’t we take that option away?” She also asked about whether students have standing to sue in this case, wondering what harm the students have experienced when test results show the Federal Way School District outperforms many other districts in the state. Mr. Porter said the court shouldn’t confuse results versus opportunity. The state’s obligation, he said, is to provide an equal educational system and opportunity to thrive. Results don’t necessarily discount differential treatment.
Justice James Johnson referred to past education cases and said, “It seems to me you’re seeking to accomplish a continuing judicial oversight in the way that was rejected in the [case of] Seattle School District.”
A ruling from the Supreme Court in the district's favor would have no immediate impact -- the ruling would be declaratory in nature, and it would be up to the state legislature to then go and design a general and uniform education funding model within the guidelines of the ruling.
