Court won't interfere with teacher pay
Posted by Diana Cieslak - November 13, 2009Yesterday the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Federal Way School District v. Washington.
The case started three years ago when the Federal Way School District along with some parents, students, and teachers sued the state claiming that it violates the state Constitution by not providing a uniform system for teacher salaries. Article 9, sec. 2 of the state Constitution gives the legislature the responsibility to “provide for a general and uniform system of public schools.” The King County Superior Court judge ruled that the state was, in fact, violating this clause. Yesterday the State Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying that the "general and uniform" clause refers to a system, not uniformity in salaries.
Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office summarized the Court’s opinion:
In writing the decision to reverse the trial court, Justice James Johnson held that the Legislature’s funding and formulas are constitutional, and reiterated the Court’s traditional deference to the Legislature to work out the details of education programming and funding. Furthermore, the district did not show that the state was failing to amply fund education.
Education reform requires legislation, not litigation. Courts overstep their authority when they start creating new policies. EFF’s Supreme Court of Washington Blog covered Federal Way School District v. Washington last June and again yesterday. (Marsha Michaelis’ policy commentary, “Analyzing Adequacy,” is also well worth reading)
A related case, McCleary v. Washington, challenges the adequacy of Washington’s education funding. The Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) is a coalition of parents, school districts, teacher unions, and others suing the state. The trial lasted nearly two months, ending in late October. A decision is expected by January and is almost certain to be appealed by whichever party loses.
Thoughts? Add Comment -
Trent said on Nov 13 2009 at 6:01pm
And this decision was unanimous, a very bad sign for the axis of greed that brought the McCleary case and a good sign for those who believe policy should be made by policymakers.
km said on Nov 17 2009 at 12:22pm
Trent: "... axis of greed..."? Rather hyperbolic editorialization. Is it not just possible that this was a legitimate issue that needed legal resolution?