In the 2012 case of McCleary v. State, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the State of Washington is violating the constitutional rights of its children by failing to fund kindergarten-through-high-school (K-12) education. The Court ordered the state Legislature to fully fund K-12 education by 2018 and make, each year before then, steady, real and measurable progress. According to the Tri-City Herald, the Legislature needs at least $1 billion in additional revenue to meet most of the expected spending needs for the 2015-17 budget.
Further, the state budget is expected to increase by $3.3 billion in 2017-19. To stay on track toward meeting its K-12 obligation, the Legislature may decide to make large cuts in other state programs such as human services.
All children in our state should have the opportunity to succeed in well-fundedschools. However, the Legislature should refrain from funding K-12 education in a way that jeopardizes programs that serve other vulnerable populations.
We support full funding K-12 education. The debate is about how to best carry out the Supreme Court’s decision. You can’t cut support for necessities such as transportation, housing and food, and expect to uphold children’s right to basic education. Even with the existing funding for social programs, students in low-income families and students of color often struggle to succeed in school. Financing education by cutting or freezing other services would exacerbate the barriers to education that low-income families and students of color already face.
According to the Washington Policy Center, public schools are currently receiving an average of $11,400 per student, more than many private schools. The Court agreed that simply adding more public money to the school system is not sufficient for the Legislature to meet its constitutional duty to provide for the education. There is room for improvement in the education system, including the current way money is spent. We believe obtaining accurate numbers about finance is the first step toward improvement.
The McCleary decision is also a perfect opportunity for a new way of thinking about funding. This opportunity can be used to come up with a more dependable and long-term solution for funding.
A Washington State Budget and Policy Center report shows investing in education as required by McCleary and addressing the existing state-budget deficit would be equivalent to cutting funding for all of the following:
▪ Four-year state college and universities ($1 billion)
▪ Student financial aid ($600 million)
▪ Cost-of-living increases for teachers ($360 million)
▪ Early learning programs for young children ($112 million)
▪ Housing assistance for individuals with disabilities ($79 million)
▪ Offender supervision ($65 million)
▪ Food assistance for vulnerable families ($24 million).
Unfortunately, all these cuts would only be enough to fully fund K-12 in the 2013-15 budget. Further cuts to health care, public safety and higher education would be required in future budgets to meet the McCleary decision requirement. Instead, the Legislature should raise taxes.
In Washington state, there are approximately 650 tax exemptions, preferential rates and credits. Preferential tax treatment decisions benefit nonprofits, local governments, hospitals, travel agents, agriculture, technology, aerospace and many others and cost the state tax coffers billions of dollars. In 2013, the state legislature gave Boeing the biggest tax break ever awarded to a single company: An $8.7 billion package to entice the airplane giant to build its 777X in the Evergreen State. Surely, some of these tax breaks could be repealed and the revenue used to stabilize the state’s budget.
According to Washington Budget and Policy Center, a new tax on capital gains could raise about $700 million per year in new revenue. That would help fund many programs.
Policy makers can also eliminate the I-747 property tax cap, which would generate $1 billion per year for state coffers.
We ask that the Legislature look at long-term solutions that will increase funding for education without cutting other essential public programs that benefit vulnerable people.