arguing that because the right to an ample education is fundamental, the State may not escape its duty to provide education regardless of whether a compelling interest is present
How later courts described this case
- arguing that because the right to an ample education is fundamental, the State may not escape its duty to provide education regardless of whether a compelling interest is present
- mandating new uniform teacher performance standards for 2010
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Seattle School District No. 1 v. State, 90 Wash. 2d 476 (1978)
Kinnear, 84 Wash.2d 685, 729, 530 P.2d 178 (1974) (plurality opinion), overruled on other grounds by Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90 Wash.2d at 514, 585 P.2d 71 ).
The opinion
Rosellini, J.
(concurring in the result) — I agree with the opinion of Chief Justice Hale insofar as it explores the provision and meaning of Const, art. 9 and concludes that this court has not been shown any constitutional ground for invalidating the system of financing public education in this state. I therefore concur in the result of that opinion.
I do not, however, concur in those portions of the opinion which would seem to suggest that the State is now providing “ample” education for all students. There is too much public opinion to the contrary and too many facts of which the members of this court are inescapably aware to justify such a conclusion.
We know that the failure of school levies in various districts has resulted in substantial impairment of the educational programs which were thought by those whose function it is to make such judgments to have been important and necessary programs. For instance, in one school district where school levies failed twice, approximately 130 teachers’ contracts were not renewed (statutory terms for termination of services). In another district, approximately 142 teachers were terminated. This impairment has, of course, been the result of expressions of popular will by means of the franchise.
Were the schools financed entirely at the State level without dependence upon the local levies, there would, presumably, be an equal distribution of financial support for schools throughout the state.
Article 8, section 6, of the Washington Constitution, provides for a system of levies at the local level, expressly including school district purposes as one of those for which municipal indebtedness may be incurred.
If a school levy fails, there may not be adequate funds to maintain an equal educational opportunity for all of its *731 students. Then doubts arise as to whether the State has discharged its constitutional duty to provide “ample” education. Again, where the State’s share of support for education is insufficient to the extent that school districts must depend disproportionately upon school levies for operation of its schools, a constitutional infirmity may exist.
It is my opinion, based upon what I have read and observed, that the State’s contribution to the cost of educating children within its borders is inadequate. The question of adequacy is one of opinion, affected by many considerations. But since the record does not clearly disclose this inadequacy, I believe that my proper function as a member of the judiciary is not to convert my personal opinion to a constitutional mandate.
For these reasons I would deny the relief sought in this action.
Wright, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.