Dick Rylander explains why more money has not meant more stability

Dick Rylander 
for Clark County Today

See Grok’s analysis of this story

When the Washington Supreme Court decided McCleary v. State of Washington in 2012, it delivered a landmark ruling: the state had failed its “paramount duty” under Article IX of the Washington Constitution to make “ample provision for the education of all children.” The word “ample,” the Court emphasized, meant more than adequate. It meant full, sufficient, and dependable support for basic education, funded primarily by the State rather than by unstable local levies. 

The ruling was legally sound and morally compelling. Yet more than a decade later, Washington’s K–12 system faces a paradox. Funding is higher than ever, but financial instability is growing. Districts warn of insolvency. Program cuts are common. And policymakers are again being asked for more money. 

How did a decision meant to fix school funding contribute to a system now approaching a fiscal cliff? 

What McCleary actually required 

The McCleary decision clarified three core principles: 

1. The state — not local districts — must be the primary funder of basic education. 
2. “Basic education” includes staffing, transportation, instructional time, and essential learning programs. 
3. Fiscal difficulty does not excuse failure to meet the constitutional duty. 

In response, the legislature passed HB 2261 and HB 2776, which defined basic education in statute and created the “prototypical school” funding model. Later, lawmakers implemented the so-called “levy swap”: the State raised its property tax for schools and capped local district levies, shifting responsibility from local voters to state government. 

The goal was clear: stabilize funding and end reliance on local levies for core educational services. 

What actually happened 

Since McCleary, per-student spending has risen dramatically. In nominal terms, Washington now spends roughly $18,000 to $20,000 per student annually — more than double what districts received a decade earlier. 

At the same time, the composition of that spending has shifted: 

• Personnel costs now consume 80–85% of district operating budgets.
• Teacher and staff salaries increased sharply after 2018, following statewide collective bargaining agreements.
• These increases created long-term, fixed obligations. 

Then another force collided with the system: enrollment decline. Since 2019, Washington has lost more than 60,000 K–12 students. Fewer students mean less revenue — but most district costs, especially staffing, buildings, transportation, and special education services, are fixed or only slowly adjustable. 

The result is a structural imbalance: 

Rising costs + declining enrollment = financial instability. 

The wage and cost spiral 

After the levy swap, many districts treated the state’s increased funding as “new money” for compensation. Local unions negotiated large salary and benefit increases, and districts agreed — often under the threat of strikes. 

These decisions were not irrational. Districts wanted to retain staff. Unions wanted to restore pay levels. But the long-term impact was predictable: 

• Recurring obligations rose faster than sustainable revenue.
• Personnel costs crowded out program flexibility.
• Districts became vulnerable to enrollment shifts and economic cycles. 

Now, many districts face what leaders call a “financial cliff.” Their options are limited: cut staff, cut programs, raise levies, or ask the state for more money. 

Inputs up, outcomes unclear 

Despite the surge in spending, there is little evidence that student outcomes have improved proportionally. Graduation rates, test scores, and readiness indicators have not risen at the same pace as expenditures. 

That highlights a central tension in Washington’s system: 

• The model is input-driven (more staff, higher salaries).
• But accountability is weakly tied to outcomes. 

In practice, funding increases have gone primarily toward compensation and compliance — not instructional innovation, student supports, or measurable performance gains. 

The structural problem 

The core issue is not simply whether schools need more money. It is how the system is designed: 

• The state sets funding formulas.
• Districts control spending decisions.
• Collective bargaining drives cost growth.
• Enrollment is declining.
• Fixed costs limit flexibility. 

That creates a cycle: 

More funding → higher fixed costs → instability → pressure for more funding. 

This is not sustainable. 

Conclusion 

The McCleary decision was an attempt to correct historical deficiencies. The State should fund basic education fully and reliably. But its implementation exposed deeper structural flaws in Washington’s K–12 finance system. 

We now spend more than ever, yet districts are less stable than before. The problem is not just funding levels. It is cost discipline, system design, and accountability alignment. 

If Washington wants McCleary’s promise to succeed, the next phase of reform must focus not only on how much we spend — but on how effectively, sustainably, and responsibly those dollars are used. 

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion column, Dick Rylander argues that although Washington dramatically increased per‑student K‑12 spending after the 2012 McCleary decision, the system is facing worsening financial instability. He attributes the strain to rising fixed personnel costs, declining enrollment, and structural problems in school funding and accountability.

What Grok notices

• Summarizes McCleary’s core principles (as presented in the column) and contrasts them with post‑ruling outcomes the author highlights, including large per‑student spending increases and continued reliance on local levies.
• Emphasizes enrollment decline as a key stressor, citing the column’s claim of more than 60,000 students lost since 2019 and framing the drop as a mismatch between staffing/cost structures and student counts.
• Argues that personnel expenses dominate budgets (described as roughly 80–85%), portraying compensation and benefits as “fixed” costs that are difficult to scale down quickly.
• Positions the debate as less about total funding and more about incentives and accountability—suggesting that higher spending has not automatically produced improved outcomes.
• Points readers toward OSPI and district‑level reporting as the place to verify and update the enrollment, spending, and staffing trends referenced in the argument.

Questions worth asking

• What accountability frameworks could more directly connect funding increases to measurable student outcomes, without ignoring factors outside a district’s control?
• As enrollment declines, what long‑term changes to staffing, grade configurations, and facility planning would be most effective—and what timelines are realistic?
• What structural changes could reduce reliance on local levies while preserving local input, and how would those changes affect equity across districts?
• Compared with states facing similar enrollment declines, how do Washington’s per‑student spending levels and outcome trends compare using consistent measures?
• What alternative compensation or staffing models (if any) could control fixed‑cost growth while maintaining recruitment, retention, and service quality?

Research this topic more

• OSPI – K‑12 financial, staffing, and enrollment reports
• Washington State Legislature – RCW statutes related to McCleary-era funding models and school finance
• Fiscal.WA.gov – statewide K‑12 expenditure and staffing data
• Washington Policy Center – commentary and analysis on McCleary and education funding
• Washington State Board of Education – accountability and performance framework resources

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Washington should stop shielding domestic abusers and sexual offenders from deportation
  Vancouver attorney Angus Lee argues Washington law improperly shields convicted domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and drunk drivers from deportation and urges lawmakers to change it.
• 
  Opinion: Who is leaving Washington and why the politicians need to care
  Mark Harmsworth argues Washington is losing higher-income taxpayers and business owners, warning that rising taxes and regulation threaten long-term economic stability.
• 
  Opinion: McCleary’s promise and Washington’s K–12 reality
  Dick Rylander examines how Washington’s post-McCleary school funding system has produced rising costs and growing financial instability despite record spending.
• 
  Opinion: Democrats in Olympia are backing Senate Bill 5974
  Sen. John Braun argues Senate Bill 5974 would undermine local control by allowing an unelected board to decertify elected county sheriffs across Washington.
• 
  Opinion: When the state orders discounts and sends you the bill
  Nancy Churchill argues that HB 2373 would raise electric rates by shifting the cost of mandated low-income utility discounts onto local ratepayers, particularly in rural Washington counties.