As Highline Public Schools asks state lawmakers for more funding for special education, transportation, and basic operations, many South King County residents are asking a reasonable question:

If Washington already spent billions to fix school funding after the McCleary court ruling, why did so much of that money go to salaries instead of student services like special education?
The answer isn’t necessarily that districts chose salaries over students. It’s that the way McCleary was implemented left districts with very little choice.

What McCleary actually required

In the landmark McCleary v. Washington case, the state Supreme Court ruled that Washington was failing its constitutional duty to fully fund basic education. Lawmakers were ordered to fix the system. To show compliance, the Legislature focused on something concrete and measurable: teacher pay.

Instead of rebuilding the entire funding formula, lawmakers:
-Dramatically increased state funding for base teacher salaries
-Created a more standardized, statewide compensation model
-Limited how districts could use local levies for basic education costs

This approach made it easy to prove to the court that the state — not local property taxes — was paying for education. But it also meant that salary increases became mandatory, not optional.

Why districts couldn’t “choose” special education instead

Many people assume districts could have redirected McCleary funding to areas like special education. In reality, special education funding works under a completely different system.

In Washington:
Special education funding is capped as a percentage of total enrollment

-The state does not pay the full cost of required services
-Districts must provide services regardless of funding shortfalls
-McCleary did not change this model.

That means districts like Highline are legally required to serve students with disabilities even when state funding falls short — and they must cover the gap using general funds.

In short, districts could not move salary dollars into special education even if that’s where the need was greatest.

Salary increases also weren’t temporary. Once salaries increased, districts were required to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, pay higher wages going forward, and cover higher benefit and pension costs tied to those wages. These became ongoing obligations, not one-time expenses.
This is relevant because personnel costs already make up 80–85% of most school district budgets. When salaries rise, flexibility elsewhere shrinks — especially when enrollment dips or inflation raises other costs.

How this connects to Highline’s legislative priorities

Highline’s 2026 legislative agenda calls on lawmakers to increase funding for:
-Special education
-Transportation
-Literacy supports
-Basic operating costs

Highline serves a high proportion of students who need additional supports — multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students from low-income households. The district operates within a system that:
-Fully funds general education salaries
-Partially funds special education
-Assumes districts can absorb the difference

As costs rise, and nearly a decade later, that assumption becomes harder to sustain.