Column by Peter Callaghan

The (Tacoma) News Tribune

Not that agreement isn't a good thing sometimes. And the state Supreme Court is more likely to be criticized for being divided than united.

But the 9-0 decision that came out of the Temple of Justice last week in Federal Way School District v. State of Washington was puzzling for both its brevity and its unanimity.

The lawsuit made this claim: Because different school districts get different amounts of money to hire teachers, staff and administrators, and because there is no rational basis for these discrepancies, the state's funding system violates the constitutional requirement that schools be "general and uniform."

It was brought by a coalition led by the Federal Way School District, which gets less money for teachers and staff than other districts because it paid them less in 1977. That was the year the current funding system was created to resolve a challenge to the state's special-levy dominated way of paying for schools.

The superior court ruled last November that there might be reasons for different funding levels, such as cost of living variations. But the current system doesn't claim to have any logical reasons for the unequal funding other than that it's always done it that way.

What difference does it make? Federal Way — along with some parents, students and teachers — said money matters. It pays less to teachers, staff and administrators. Because of pay pressure from other districts and from its unions, it has to use more of its local levy money to make up pay differences. And because its allocation from the state is lower, the total it can get from that local levy is lower.

That translates into less opportunity for kids in some districts compared to better-funded districts. And few who pay attention to public education in Washington think we have a good system. The Legislature admits to the disparity regularly when it sets aside money to try to equalize funding. And one of the drivers behind the passage of House Bill 2261 last session was to get ahead of potential court orders.

Therefore the court's conclusion that everything is just fine was a shock. The court relied on an assertion that school budgets are a political decision, not a judicial decision. Because it has never ruled that a uniform system requires uniform funding, whatever the Legislature comes up with is probably OK.

It even bought a clever but illogical conclusion offered by the state's lawyers — that because Federal Way students do better on assessment tests than some better-funded districts, there must be no ill effect. So the fact that its teachers do more with less works against the district. The fact that some of the kids who still fail might have been saved with more-equal funding is of no interest to this court.

Most troubling was the court's finding that individual kids and parents have little legal standing to challenge funding decisions, only school districts do.

Supporters of the ruling are correct that funding is a legislative issue. But the Legislature must craft budgets that meet the constitutional requirement for ample funding and a uniform system. If it doesn't, the court has a duty to weigh in.

In its rush to get out from under thorny political issues, all nine justices agreed once again to do as little as possible. The nine justices could have at least given some guidance as to what "uniform" means, what "ample" means. It didn't because that's not the court's job, the justices keep proving. Want more clarity? Bring more lawsuits.

The effect is serious. Much of the momentum behind HB 2261 and other attempts to reform funding came from the threat of this suit and a pending suit claiming the state is not making ample provision for schools. Fixing the funding gave lawmakers leverage to make the system more accountable for results.

With the pressure now easing, the Legislature could well revert to its previous and comfortable stance — viewing the current system with alarm but doing nothing to fix it.