Opinion ID: 2615891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legislative implementation of the State's mandatory duty.

Text: Although the mandatory duties of Const. art. 9, § 1 are imposed upon the State, the organization, administration, and operational details of the general and uniform system required by Const. art. 9, § 2 are the province of the Legislature. In the latter area the judiciary is primarily concerned with whether the Legislature acts pursuant to the mandate and, having acted, whether it has done so constitutionally. Within these parameters, then, the system devised is within the domain of the Legislature. [14] While the judiciary has the duty to construe and interpret the word education by providing broad constitutional guidelines, the Legislature is obligated to give specific substantive content to the word and to the program it deems necessary to provide that education within the broad guidelines. However, the broad guidelines which we have provided do not contemplate that the State must furnish total education in the sense of all knowledge or the offering of all programs, subjects, or services which are attractive but only tangentially related to the central thrust of our guidelines. Specifically, then, we shall refer to the Legislature's obligation as one to provide basic education through a basic program of education as distinguished from total education or all other educational programs, subjects, or services which might be offered. With the foregoing considerations in mind, we note that the Legislature has heretofore enacted laws to provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. However, it has not as yet fully implemented Const. art. 9, §§ 1 and 2 by defining or giving substantive content to basic education or a basic program of education. Thus, the Legislature must hereafter act to comply with its constitutional duty by defining and giving substantive meaning to them. [14] Respondents also suggest the need for additional judicial guidelines for matters less fundamental than those discussed heretofore. For example, they suggested we adopt guidelines concerning (1) deployment of instructional and classified staff; (2) staffing ratios and salaries; (3) individualization of instruction for the handicapped, gifted, below average, and for the particular unique needs of students; (4) recognition of unique demographical and geographical demands; (5) local control; and (6) support services. However, in light of the judicial guidelines already set forth and considering the need for the Legislature to rethink and retool much of the present educational system, so that it may mesh as a working whole, we decline respondents' invitation. We are confident the Legislature will consider each of these concerns as well as all other appropriate matters when framing its definition of basic education and when giving substantive content to a basic program of education. There are important policy reasons, historical and otherwise, that pertain to these concerns. But, we cannot say at this time that any one of them, standing alone, rises to a constitutional imperative requiring immediate judicial intervention. While the Legislature must act pursuant to the constitutional mandate to discharge its duty, the general authority to select the means of discharging that duty should be left to the Legislature. See Newman v. Schlarb, 184 Wash. 147, 153, 50 P.2d 36 (1935). Finally, the constitution requires more than a mere definition of basic education or a basic program of education. As we will discuss fully in Sections IX and X below, the State also has an affirmative paramount duty to make ample provision for funding the basic education or basic program of education defined. This funding must be accomplished by means of dependable and regular tax sources and cannot be dependent on special excess levies. See Section XI, below. Insofar as Northshore School Dist. 417 v. Kinnear, 84 Wn.2d 685, 530 P.2d 178 (1974) is inconsistent with Section VIII of this opinion, it is overruled.