One of the topics for discussion was the McCleary deicision handed down by the Washington State Court that found the State failing to fund basic education.
In response Scheidler read from the decision itself and what the Court viewed as “basic education”. The Court states at paragraph 119,
The legislature has done this by defining the program of basic education in terms of several offerings it considers necessary to provide the constitutionally required education to all children. At the time this case went to trial, the legislature’s basic education program included (1) the education program outlined in the Basic Education Act, (2) special education, (3) some pupil transportation, (4) the learning assistance program (remediation), (5) transitional bilingual education, and (6) the institutional education program for juveniles in detention. «22» Ex. 192, at 4-5; Ex. 43, at 2.«22» Although ESHB 2261 expanded the program of basic education to include, for example, all-day kindergarten and the highly capable program, these offerings were not implemented prior to trial.
Scheidler then noted that under Washington’s Constitution, we have two “educational” provisions — Article 9 schools and Article 13 Schools. Scheidler noted that both the legislature and the judicial branch have combined two DIFFERENT school systems into one. Scheidler said that Article 13 Schools are specifically established to provide (2) special education, (3) some pupil transportation, (4) the learning assistance program (remediation), (5) transitional bilingual education, and (6) the institutional education program for juveniles in detention. Under Article 13, the “schools” are funded differently than Article 9 Schools, which require “Ample” funding, and should NOT BE COMBINED under the Court’s McCleary reasoning. He claims both the legislature and the courts are betraying our constitution by lumping two distinct school systems into one and it is nothing more than a “manufactured crises” intended to burden citizens with higher taxes.
Scheidler went on to say that the Court’s analysis of our state’s obligations to “amply fund” Article 9 schools delibertely left out and important element in their analysis, which is the “PROHIBITION” in article 9 schools being under “sectarian control”. the word “sectarian” is a broad term that would include organizations such as “religions, political and labor unions (such as the Washington State Education Association). Scheidler claims the Court’s blind-eye to this PROHIBITION is to protect the union’s control of our teachers and schools. (Article 13 schools have no such prohibition — which means these schools may be religious, political or union controlled so long as the curriculum remains “non-sectarian”.)
When we have a government that betrays our constitution in such a deceptive way, it is time to raise holy hell in Olympia!