Washingtonians love schools. Many of us grew up walking to our local elementary school, and we’ve dreamed of walking our own kids to school someday. I became a father on April 25, 2024; a week later, Seattle Public Schools announced that the elementary school I’d hoped to walk my kid to may close, along with nineteen others. Since then, they’ve repeatedly refused to tell us which schools, instead offering us a PR campaign disguised as a “presentation.” Parents and students in districts across the state face similar closures as school districts grapple with vicious cycles of falling enrollment and budget shortfalls.
As a new parent, I’m angry—like a lot of other parents who’ve been fighting school closures for years. As a lawyer, I know that we can’t just blame the school district, or state legislators, or even curtailed federal funding for our struggling schools. Washington’s Supreme Court has helped starve our schools of state revenue—their primary funding source—for years. To permanently fix school closures, Washingtonians must elect justices willing to reject decades of oligarchic attempts to rig our state constitution in favor of the wealthy. Thankfully, we’ll elect one new justice this year. Voters need to know whether these candidates will fix the mess their predecessors created.
The Washington Supreme Court’s Incoherent Approach to Education
Washington’s highest court has fought for schools with one hand while starving them with the other.
On the one hand, our Supreme Court has loudly championed Article IX, Section 1 of the state constitution, which gives our state government one paramount duty: providing every child in Washington with a quality education. A long line of state court decisions has explained that Article IX grants every Washington kid the right to a quality education, and our State Supreme Court has, at times, aggressively protected that right. In 2012, the Court found in McCleary v. Washington that the Legislature had violated students’ rights by failing to adequately fund education, touching off a six-year intergovernmental battle. Voters backed the Court, and legislators finally satisfied the justices by coming up with hundreds of millions in new funding from property taxes.
On the other hand, though, the same Court forcing legislators to fund schools was simultaneously choking off new sources of revenue. The Court has blocked taxes on the wealthy that could more than satisfy the state’s paramount duty since 1933, when five justices bowed to pressure from rich Seattle business interests and invalidated an income tax overwhelmingly passed by popular initiative.
The Court’s decision in that case, Culliton v. Chase, created three myths: First, that there are only two types of taxes, excise taxes—taxes on the privilege of doing business—and property taxes; second, that income taxes are property taxes under the Washington constitution; and third, that all Washington property taxes must be strictly uniform. The Culliton Court also claimed, falsely, that the justices were respecting precedent by following previous decisions that had already decided income taxes were unconstitutional property taxes.
By invalidating a popular tax on the wealthy in 1933, Washington’s Supreme Court justices allowed themselves to become political pawns beholden to wealthy, anti-democratic interests—a preview of similar tactics used today by elitist groups such as the Federalist Society. By bowing to powerful elites, the Court forced the Legislature to create a wildly unstable, unfair tax system relying on property and sales taxes paid by working families. Simultaneously, the Court effectively exempted wealthy Washingtonians and large corporations from taxation—starving public institutions, especially schools, of necessary funds.
Even the Court itself recently acknowledged that its incoherent approach to taxes has created a political nightmare; Washington’s wealth inequality has exploded, and we now have the second-most unjust tax system in the country—only Florida’s is worse.
The Court Refuses to Fix Its Own Mess
Unfortunately, Washington’s justices recently refused to end this political nightmare by giving the Legislature back its constitutional authority to tax the rich and fund schools. In last year’s Quinn v. State decision, the Court rejected the opportunity to abandon its 1933 Culliton decision rigging Washington’s taxation scheme in favor of the rich. While the Court did approve the Legislature’s popular—and wildly successful—capital gains tax, the justices also explicitly declined to revisit Culliton. Although the justices acknowledged that the Court had the authority to reject incorrect and harmful precedent—and Culliton certainly is both—they decided to issue a much narrower decision that left Washington’s dysfunctional, unjust taxation scheme largely untouched.
By allowing Culliton to live, the justices permitted rich ideologues to inhibit school funding by delaying any new wealth taxes—not just old-school income taxes—with frivolous, years-long lawsuits. The capital gains tax, for example, took nine years to pass in the Legislature and two years to work its way through the courts before finally being implemented—and yielding almost $900 million in revenue for schools. Washington’s Supreme Court could have used Quinn to close the door on future lawsuits by admitting that Washington’s populist constitution grants the Legislature broad authority to fund education by taxing the rich. Instead, the court allowed illegitimate, undemocratic, Depression-Era precedent to stand, even at the expense of our kids’ right to a quality education.
Now, any new tax will face the same silly, unnecessary legal fight over which type of tax it is, with judges—not voters, legislators, teachers, or policy experts—having the final say. Judges got us into this mess, and, thanks to state constitution age limits, voters will pick new justices this year, in 2026, and in 2028. Washington voters must elect justices willing to get out of the way and allow the Legislature to amply fund education.
Austin Field is a public defender in Seattle. Before attending law school at the University of Washington, he was an Army infantry officer, a law firm operations manager, and a public defense investigator. The views expressed are his own.
A question and a point of clarification for Austin. Can you provide any example of how the massive revenue infusion from McClearly provided any uplift in educational outcomes? Pumping more money into schools that are not focused on educational quality is not going to change anything except providing a salary bump for teachers.
The supreme court did the right thing. If an income tax is so overwhelmingly popular the legislature can pass one at any time by creating a constitutional amendment and putting it to the people for a vote. The supremes have shut the back door so now the legislature will have to do things the right way.
“I became a father on April 25, 2024; a week later, Seattle Public Schools announced that the elementary school I’d hoped to walk my kid to may close, along with nineteen others.”
For fucks sake, the kid’s only two months old and the ranter’s fretting over potentially losing the privilege of having a school within walking distance… then complaining that WA’s Supreme Court isn’t progressive enough.
Someone needs a reality check.
Great run down of the role of the Washington Supreme court and legislature in delivering among the most unfair taxation scheme in the nation. Thank you.
@1 are you claiming that providing more competitive salaries for teachers will not improve the output and quality of teachers, thus education? Current median King county teacher salary just barely cover expenses for one person without kids. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53033
@2 Are you saying that each time (everyday, perhaps several times day) you pay sales taxes and nickel and dime fees, it isn’t a “reality check”? You do have an odd definition of reality.
@3 I’m not making any such claim. It doesn’t seem we have an issue attracting and keeping teachers. The issue is attracting and keeping students. How is paying teachers more money (which is essentially what will happen if we pour revenue into the current system) going to fix the student retention problem? I have no issues with teachers making more money but I don’t think that is the issue here.
@5 your comment referred to “educational outcome” and “educational quality”, not to attracting student and retention. Educational outcome is likely highly correlated to teacher salary. Attracting and retaining students should follow from education quality but I am not sure what issue you are specifically referring to.
@6 The reason SPS is in this predicament is because they have lost and continue to lose students every year. Let’s say you and the OP get your wish and the legislature lowers the bar for the capital gains tax to crank up revenue. How will that stem the tide of student losses when the only thing it will do is keep the status quo?
@4 – the primary “reality check” is the author’s unrealistic expectation of having an elementary school within walking distance of their home. A multitude of factors including population density, demographics, and cost mean only a relative handful of households will ever be that close to their local schools; and even if you go out of your way to live that close to your local school (which implies a certain level of privilege), it’s not realistic to assume nothing will change between the birth of their child two weeks ago and the time that same child is finally school-aged.
The other reality check is on the authors expectations for the state Supreme Court to proactively address issues beyond the core context of a case under consideration vis-a-vis a progressive income tax and some x-degrees of separation later their toddler being able to go to their preferred local school.
@7 Why are you assuming that funding needed programs will keep the status quo instead of reversing it? If public school get the funds they actually need to provide quality education, they are in a much better place to do so than if their funding remains inadequate. Retaining students will follow.
@7 which programs are they going to fund that will increase student retention?
Sorry that last one was for @9 obviously
All good points above ^^^ but dang are we letting this school board and district staff off the hook for this super lackluster, trolling performance of leadership? They’ve been threatening closures for over a year now, asked and received input, done so many analyses, families are tired of being strung along on this will they or won’t they close the school they’ve built their life around.
I find this series on pointing blame fingers – the legislature! the courts! – everywhere but the school board very concerning.
@12: “I find this series on pointing blame fingers – the legislature! the courts! – everywhere but the school board very concerning.”
Concerning, sure, but utterly predictable. As has been noted elsewhere in the comment threads on this topic, every one of the current Seattle Public School Board members had once received an endorsement from the Stranger. As the Stranger’s interminably servile obediences to O’Brien, Sawant, Herbold, Gonzalez, Mosqueda, Morales, wanna-be NTK, and never-be Oliver shows, admitting error and moving on are the diametrical opposite of the modern Stranger’s core competencies. There is no way this Stranger will ever admit to making political errors of any kind, let alone of the magnitude that have dumped SPS into the current abyss.
I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for you. I spent my childless decades voting for every Seattle school levy, researching even the most long-shot candidates for the School Board, in every election — and then I left Seattle, in part to obtain a better education for my child. I cannot even imagine enduring what you survive. I hope that, somehow, matters improve for you and your family.
Parents and students are fleeing the failing Seattle Public School system.
Private schools are overwhelmed by demand.
Just the usual note pointing out that The Stranger accused the candidates who warned about school closures of “fear-mongering” while endorsing a slate that is now closing schools. The Stranger has said nothing about these board members and publishes this “hey, don’t look here, look there!!!” collective of guest rants. Meanwhile the Hannah performance art collective whines not being able to be hard-hitting on a Councilmember the collective doesn’t like.
You’re gonna race that car over the cliff of irrelevance no matter what, eh?
@10 Take you pick. Public school budgets show that all programs, from basic to special education, have been underfunded.
@12 only the legislature and the courts have the means to provide adequate funding without which no good solution is available:
Designed to Fail: The Legislature’s McCleary solution has collapsed
http://paramountduty.org/designed-to-fail-the-legislatures-mccleary-solution-has-collapsed/
The Stranger has a track record of offering astonishingly stupid takes about WA-6. They previously wrote an article advocating that people vote for Derek Kilmer’s primary opponent back in 2020. She wound up getting 13% of the vote in the primary. Kilmer then proceeded to stomp his GOP opponent in the general 59-31. Kilmer was an absolutely dominant candidate in every race he ever ran and a reliable Democratic vote, so naturally The Stranger wanted him to lose his seat.
You can read it here:
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/07/07/44045681/rep-derek-kilmer-misleadingly-claims-to-fight-for-universal-health-care-in-latest-ad
Obviously Medicare for All was the shiny object in front of The Stranger back then. Now it’s Gaza. In 2 years it’ll be something else.
What The Stranger knows about any aspect of Washington politics occurring more than 5 miles away from the corner of Pike and Broadway could be printed in 100 foot high letters on the head of a pin. If Emily Randall wants to win, the best possible thing she could do is disregard any and all advice given to her by The Stranger.
FFS, wrong thread.
@3: Competitive salaries for teachers is one thing. Ever-increasing salaries for (and numbers of) administrative and other non-teaching positions is another. Unfortunately, the easiest way to combat this bloat is to consolidate and reduce the non-teacher to teacher ratio. The more you water down the districts employee pool with overhead positions, the less money you have to pay the teaching staff.
But it’s all for naught if families with children have to move out of the district because the cost of living there is too high. Fewer kids means less teachers, no matter how highly paid.
@20 Competent administrators and non-teaching positions are also essential to well functioning schools don’t you think? The legislature funded 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 nurses per elementary school between 2022 and 2024 for example so it’s going to be hard to find meaningful bloat in non-teaching positions.
Fewer kids mean fewer teachers but the money allocated per student by the legislature has to increase in order to cover basic expenses and provide a quality education. Many school districts are facing cuts. Washington state is currently in the middle of the pack in term of money allocated so there is room to increase funding.
@21: If you mandate 0.4 nurses per school (or any other fixed staffing/cost per school) it stands to reason that the cost per student of this fixed overhead goes down as the school size goes up. Without increasing the funding per student. Hence the push to consolidate.
On the other hand, as student numbers decrease across the city, people are going to expect overall funding numbers to go down. Particularly if those people don’t have kids in the system. Expecting the number of schools to remain the same just isn’t a reasonable position politically. Besides, that one last kid in an otherwise empty building is going to be pretty lonely.