Judge gives the state a failing grade on education funding

This week, a judge ruled that the state’s current model for funding education is a violation of the Wyoming Constitution, ending a years-long lawsuit between the Wyoming Education Association and the state of Wyoming.

In other words, the state received an “F” grade when it comes to paying for education.

District Judge Peter Froelicher, who was appointed by Gov. Matt Mead at the end of 2018 shortly before Mead left office, wrote that the state’s funding model doesn’t accurately reflect the cost to provide education.

For one, it doesn’t account for inflation, the judge wrote, nor does it account for other school district employees who, while not educators, still play a big part in students’ education.

I saw a headline from an online Wyoming news outlet that read, “Judge tells Wyoming legislators to buy more computers and fund schools better.”

Well, yes, but also, no.

Yes, computers were one element of the judge’s criticism toward the state, but if that’s your big takeaway, then you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

The judge also called out a lack of proper funding for elementary-level mental health counselors, school resource officers and nutrition programs. You know, things that help keep the kids safe and healthy. Computers are cool and all, but we’ve got a health crisis on our hands, both physical and mental.

Some of the testimony given by school district officials during the bench trial was sad. We’ve got elementary students who are dealing with some very dark thoughts.

The judge also criticized the state for “not adequately and evenly assessing school facilities” and that it’s violating the Wyoming Constitution by “allowing unequal and inadequate school facilities to exist for too long.” I’m sure CCHS supporters are going, “I told you so” right now.

So what happens now?

The judge ordered the state to change the way it funds education, and from my experience, it’s usually best to do what a judge says. I guess you could always go to another judge and hope that judge says something different. But that’s not a given.

There are quite a few legislators who’ve made it no secret that they believe public education could stand to be cut quite a bit. I know they’re not big fans of this decision.

How much money is the state willing to spend to argue that it shouldn’t give more money toward education?

Froelicher did suggest that since 2025 is a recalibration year, this is an “excellent window of opportunity” to address the issues. But the state hasn’t always gone with the recommendations made by the recalibration report, which is why it finds itself in its current position.

For example, school resource officers have been considered at every recalibration since 2005 but have never been added. And salaries were not reset during the 2010, 2015 and 2020 recalibrations.

So, should we expect anything to change this time around? The court will be watching very closely where it goes from here.

The ball is in the state’s hands now. The clock is ticking.