School District Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education v. State, No. 82961-6. The School District Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education challenged the constitutionality of Washington’s special education funding system as inadequate to completely provide for the education of special needs students, forcing some districts to rely on levies for special education funding.
The court found several problems with the Alliance’s accounting, and ruled that their arguments “do not establish beyond a reasonable doubt” that special education is underfunded. Accordingly, both the Thurston County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals found the funding statute to be constitutional.
The Supreme Court (Justice Susan Owens writing) agreed with the lower courts.
The Washington Constitution provides that “[i]t is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.” Special education in Washington is funded by three sources: 1) the Basic Education Allotment (BEA), which the State provides to school districts based on an enrollment average; 2) special education excess funding from the State if a school district cannot provide an appropriate education for special education students; and 3) “safety net” funds where the State provides additional funding to districts with demonstrated needs for special education funding.
The Alliance sued, arguing that the State was underfunding special education. However, in presenting evidence of underfunding, the Alliance omitted funding that came from the BEA, arguing that BEA funds for special education students goes toward basic education classrooms.
The Supreme Court first addressed the proper standard of review. Justice Owens wrote: “In Washington, it is well established that statutes are presumed constitutional and that a statute’s challenger has a heavy burden to overcome that presumption; the challenger must prove that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” (The Alliance had argued a lower threshold of proof should apply.)
The Supreme Court also rejected the key argument that special education funding should be calculated without including the BEA. The Court noted that the Alliance’s own expert found that a special education student costs 190 percent of a basic education student. The State, when including the BEA and additional special education funding into the formula, allocates 193.09 percent of basic education costs for each special education student.
“For us to conclude that the BEA should not be included in calculations of how much funding goes to special education, we would have to agree with the Alliance’s contention that basic education and special education are in entirely separate realms. The Alliance attempts to differentiate between basic education and special education services, but the law does not support this distinction.”
“The legislature has consistently made it clear that special education students are also basic education students and that the additional special education funding is in addition to, and takes into account, the BEA. We therefore disagree with the Alliance’s contention that basic education and special education are entirely separate. We affirm the trial court and Court of Appeals and hold that the BEA must be included in the calculations when deciding if special education is adequately funded.”
Justice Debra Stephens concurred separately in the result. Justice Tom Chambers also wrote a concurring opinion, but dissented as to the requirement that a party arguing an statute is unconstitutional must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Justice Richard Sanders dissented entirely, also disagreeing with the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. He argued this placed too great a burden on any party challenging a legislative enactment. “The judiciary cannot protect against an overreaching legislature if every enactment is presumed constitutional unless proved otherwise ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ giving the legislature, simply because it is the legislature, an advantage against any challenger’s assertion to the contrary.” Justice Sanders also argued that the legislature was underfunding special education when basic and special education funding are analyzed separately.
Edward Gregoire, the deceased, exhibited erratic emotional behavior while he was being transported to jail, tried to run, and shortly after being placed in his cell hung himself. Tanya Gregoire, as the personal representative of Gregoire’s estate, sued Oak Harbor for negligence. 
