Background/Footnotes: In 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of school choice in a case involving a disabled Washington resident. In Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, the plaintiff was a blind individual who wanted to use his state assistance to attend a religious college. The Court ruled that this did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause since the money did not go directly from the state to the religious institution but to an individual who determined its use.[1]

Since 1990, 11th and 12th grade students have been able to take free college courses under the state's Running Start program. Private and home-schooled students may take advantage of this option but must enroll through their local public high school, although they do not have to attend school there.[2]

During the 1997-1998 session, a charter school bill, House Bill 2019, was passed by the House but then died in the Senate.[3] Even though charter schools are public entities, the state Parent Teacher Association declared, "We're very glad this went down. We've been opposed to use of public money for private schools, but we have to keep doing this every year."[4]

H.B. 1670 and Senate Bill 5949, introduced in 1999, would have established a pilot voucher program called the Academic Choice in Education Scholarship Program. Students in the state's five largest school districts would have received vouchers worth $3,500. To be eligible, students would have had to qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program. During the 1999-2000 school year, up to 7 percent of eligible students could have participated, and the number would have risen to 15 percent the following year and subsequent years. Both bills died in committee.[5]

In 2000, supporters of charter schools introduced H.B. 2415, which would have allowed for the creation of 40 charter schools in districts with public school enrollments above 2,000. The bill died in the House Rules committee.[6]

Charter proponents collected enough signatures to place the issue on the November 2000 ballot. Initiative 729 would have authorized up to 20 charters a year for four years. The initiative enjoyed the support of Governor Gary Locke, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell, the Urban League, and 10 state newspapers.[7] Nevertheless, Initiative 729 was narrowly defeated by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.

Three parental choice bills were introduced in 2001. S.B. 5337 would have authorized vouchers worth up to $4,000 for students in low-performing schools to attend a private school or another public school in the same district. S.B. 5666 would have provided children with academic or behavioral difficulties with vouchers to attend private schools approved by the Washington State Board of Education. Both bills died in committee. The Senate also rejected efforts to attach a voucher amendment to another education bill during debate. The amendment would have provided a $4,000 voucher to students who attend poorly performing schools.[8]

In June 2002, the Washington Supreme Court, overturning a previous trial court decision, ruled that the state's Educational Opportunity Grant (EOG) Program does not violate the state constitution when college students use grants for tuition at religiously affiliated colleges. Washington's Blaine amendment prohibits public-sector funding of sectarian institutions. The state has interpreted this provision to prohibit students from using state aid to attend religious K-12 schools or colleges. The court ruled that the Blaine amendment did not apply to higher education. However, it did not consider whether the Blaine amendment itself violates the U.S. Constitution, which requires that government programs must be nondiscriminatory toward religion.[9]

On July 18, 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a Washington State policy that prohibits students who use state higher education scholarships to earn a degree in theology. The court declared in Davey v. Locke that "a state law may not offer a benefit to all...but exclude some on the basis of religion."[10] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In September 2002, the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit in Washington State arguing that the state's religious establishment clause, discriminates against students at religious schools. The Washington State attorney had interpreted the clause to prohibit student teaching at religious schools. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Carolyn Harrison, who was not allowed to finish the internship required by the University of Washington at Tacoma at the Jesuit school where she teaches. Donnell Rene Penhallurick, an education student who wished to complete her internship at a Seventh-day Adventist school, was also represented. The Institute for Justice has launched a legal effort to ensure that state constitutions are interpreted as parallel to the U.S. Constitution--that is, that they are neutral with regard to religion.[11]

Prompted by a change in state policy, the Institute for Justice withdrew its lawsuit against Washington State for discriminating against student teachers that choose religious schools. In April 2003, the state decided to allow Carolyn Harrison to intern at her Jesuit school. The court, however, refused to grant an injunction to allow Donnell Rene Penhallurick to teach at a religious school in Moses Lake. The state now requires universities to allow students either to intern at any private school--religious or secular--or to intern at only public schools.[12]

In March 2003, a bill to authorize charter schools, S.B. 5012, passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 23.[13] The bill authorized district school boards and university boards to grant up to 70 charters over six years. Both the formation of new schools and public school conversions were allowed.[14] However, the House failed to pass the bill before the end of the session.[15]

On February 25, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Locke v. Davey to uphold the State of Washington's policy to deny scholarship funds to students studying for religious ministry. The Court's narrow ruling applied only to this higher education policy and did not address K-12 voucher programs or the state's Blaine amendment.[16]

In early spring 2004, the legislature passed a charter school bill, H.B. 2295 by a 27-22 vote in the Senate and a 51-46 vote in the House of Representatives. H.B. 2295 enables school districts and the state Superintendent of Public Institution to authorize up to 45 schools over a six-year period. Schools will be exempt from most state school regulations except those concerning civil rights, health, safety, and testing. The governor signed the bill on May 18, 2004.[17]

In June 2004, the Washington Education Association, a teachers union opposed to charter schools,[18] filed the requisite number of signatures with the Washington Secretary of State to put a charter school referendum on the November ballot. The charter school law was suspended until the vote.

The measure, Referendum Measure 55, gave state residents the option to vote for or against a charter law. The law was defeated, with 58.4 percent of residents voting against the measure and 48.5 percent voting in favor of the law.[19]

In February 2005, Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Raj Manhas proposed saving money by closing 20 schools in the system.[20] The proposal was modified in April, and the Seattle School Board planned to vote on a proposal to close 10 schools in the system in June and end the city's open-enrollment policy.[21] Under the proposal, parents would only be able to choose between neighborhood schools, though students in grades 3 and higher enrolled in schools outside their neighborhood could remain in their chosen schools. Students in K-2 attending schools outside their neighborhood will be assigned to a neighborhood school. The changes were to take effect in 2006.

In 2006, more proposals were made to close Seattle schools. On April 5, the Seattle School Board decided to close 11 public schools in the district by the 2007-08 school year. However, the Board pledged to remain flexible as to whether and when some of the schools on the list would be closed at all.[22] The Board chose the schools based on an agreed-upon checklist for evaluating schools, including a school building's physical condition, enrollment numbers, and student achievement.[23]

---