On Wednesday, all sides in the ongoing McCleary court case will face each other at the Washington State Supreme Court.
Here’s a quick refresher:
The McCleary decision was made by the State Supreme Court in January, 2012. The ruling was that the State has “not complied with its Article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington”.
Essentially, the Supreme Court demanded that the Legislature put more money into K-12 Education.
In response, the Legislature did. Under the leadership of the new Senate Majority Coalition Caucus, about $1 billion in additional funding was added in 2013. The Spokesman-Review picks up the rest of the story:
This January, the court said it wanted a plan on how the Legislature would handle the rest of the job. But with Democrats firmly in control of the House and a predominantly Republican coalition in charge of the Senate, legislators couldn’t agree to the next round of changes, and essentially told the court that in April.
The coalition of families, community groups and education organizations who won the earlier ruling asked the court to find the Legislature in contempt and impose some sanctions that were threatened when the orders first came down – which could include the justices taking over the budget process. The court ordered all sides to show up Sept. 3 to make their best case on why sanctions should or should not be handed out.
So that’s where we are: all sides in this case will face off on Wednesday.
What Do You Think?
While it’s probably safe to say that the original McCleary decision has helped lead to increased funding and reforms for K-12 education, there are many who are at least a little squeemish about the Supreme Court setting any kind of budget policy.
What do you think?
How do you feel about the State Supreme Court determining how to budget tax dollars?
Last month we wrote a piece about how “union-beholden lawmakers” (the words of a News Tribune editorial) failed our kids and our schools.
The result of the political about-face that we described was that our schools will lose over $40 million a year in federal funds that was dedicated to poor students. So we asked our readers two questions:
1) Did the Washington Education Association have the best interests of school kids in mind when they pushed lawmakers to take no legislative action, which will result in the loss of the $40 million?
2) Should candidates who receive money from the WEA return it?
The results were clear:
Last week The News Tribune wrote a scathing editorial titled “Schools didn’t fail; union-beholden lawmakers did“:
A few weeks hence, parents across the state will be getting letters telling them that their children’s schools are failures. The letters — mandated by federal No Child Left Behind law — will be lying.
The failure lies in the Legislature. Specifically it lies with lawmakers — mostly Democrats — who lacked the moral and political spine last spring to buck an unhinged state teachers union and do the right thing for kids.
The compulsory letters are hardly the worst consequence of lawmakers’ failure.
Of far great magnitude is the loss of school districts’ control over roughly $40 million a year in federal Title I funding for poor students. That translates, for example, into an estimated $1.8 million in the Tacoma Public Schools alone. The money will still arrive, but districts may have to use it to buy private tutoring for students or bus rides to other districts.
The back story on this is a little complex. Essentially, the Washington Education Association switched positions on requiring statewide test data to be used in teacher evaluations. They were for it, then they were against it and pressured Democratic lawmakers into opposing the requirement as well.
The lack of legislative action on this ended up putting Washington out of compliance with No Child Left Behind.
While the story is complicated, the bottom line is that the Washington Education Association’s bullying has cost our schools over $40 million a year in federal funds for poor students. On top of that are the frightening letters parents will receive telling them their local schools are failures.
The editorial summed it up well:
Parents shouldn’t blame their schools for the letters. They should blame lawmakers who dared not fail a patently foolish union litmus test, even at the expense of the state’s schoolchildren.
What Do You Think?
Have you ever wondered why you spend so much money on taxes and fees and yet there is a looming constitutional crisis here in Washington because the State Supreme Court insists that much more needs to be spent on education?
This is because, while government spending has dramatically increased over time, education spending has not been prioritized:
This kind of radical deprioritization of education begs the question: Why do teachers’ unions still almost always support Democrats who, in large part, have had near or total control over Washington’s governing bodies during the last 30 years?
We don’t know the answer. But the good news is that this trend has been reversed in the last couple years.
Education Spending Reprioritized Under Majority Coalition Caucus
Since the Senate has been controlled by the bipartisan Majority Coalition Caucus, this trend has begun to reverse.
The following chart shows Education spending growth (13%) compared to Non-Education spending growth (4%) since the Coalition has begun implementing its agenda:
This represents a radical change from the past 30 years.
When it comes down to it, this year’s state legislative elections have a lot to do with whether voters agree with prioritizing more money for education than on other government expenditures.
What do you think? Is that important to you?
Have you heard of JZ Knight? She’s the Yelm-based spiritual leader who claims to channel a spirit named Ramtha. Back in 2012, a video surfaced of Knight using hateful language in reference to homosexuals, Jews and Catholics.
Knight, now 68, says she’s been channeling the Ram since 1979, when he emerged one day in her Tacoma kitchen. That led to a multimillion-dollar business called the Ramtha School of Enlightenment at the gated site of her former Thurston County horse ranch in 1988, which this year has blossomed into a globe-trotting expansion of her teachings she calls the 2014 Ramtha World Tour.
Hers is not a religion or a cult, she insists, but an “academy of the mind” that supposedly involves the latest discoveries in neuroscience and quantum physics…
JZ Knight and (apparently) Ramtha are very political, giving thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates. Two years ago, the State Democratic party gave back $70,000 in donations from Knight after the aforementioned video surfaced.
Knight is back in the news now with revelations that she donated $65,000 this year to the Thurston County Democrats. This is from the News Tribune:
The county party organization accepted $65,000 from Knight earlier this year. Its leaders thoroughly examined the matter and concluded, as county Chairman Roger Erskine put it, “JZ Knight is a very good strong Democrat, and she totally supports our platform and our goals, and I think that’s good enough.”
Survey: Should Thurston County Democrats Return Knight’s Donation?
It’s only fair to stipulate that accepting campaign money in no way means the recipients agree with the donors. But many have nonetheless called for political contributions from Knight to be returned. What do you think?