Legislature must perform constitutional duty on education funding

A major development in Wyoming government and policy occurred last week that many people likely missed. While the Legislature has commanded the lion’s share of attention, this development occurred in the courts. On Wednesday, the Laramie County District Court ruled in the lawsuit filed by the Wyoming Education Association that challenged how the Legislature has funded education in Wyoming. This decision will have major implications for how our state must provide education, especially the costs of doing so.

To understand why this decision is so important, it is helpful to first understand how school funding has been impacted by court cases in the past. Wyoming’s education funding is largely a product of a series of court cases commonly referred to as the Campbell cases, decided in the 90s and early 2000s. In those cases, the Wyoming Supreme Court articulated what our state constitution requires our government to do to provide public education.  

The Campbell cases are long and complicated, with many nuances, but several key rulings rise to the forefront. The Supreme Court held that our state constitution requires our Legislature to provide an equal education to all Wyoming students. Quality of education cannot be tied to local wealth.  Children in poorer counties are entitled to the same quality of education as those in our wealthier counties, and differences in local resources cannot result in differences in educational quality. This means more than simply providing the same amount of funding per child. Instead, the Legislature must evaluate the cost of providing an equal education in each area of our state. It may cost more or less to provide the same quality of education in Cheyenne as it does in Cody. If there are cost differences, the Legislature must account for them. 

Perhaps the most important ruling from the Campbell cases is that Wyoming’s education system must be the best we can provide, and a lack of funding is no excuse. We cannot provide a subpar education system just because we do not want to pay for it. If the best education system costs more than the funds the Legislature has available to it, lawmakers must go find the funds, even if that means increasing taxes. Lastly, the Legislature must reassess these costs regularly and make adjustments based on the real-world costs of providing that education.

These earlier rulings have formed the basis for the Legislature’s funding decisions for the past several decades. The court decision released this week expands on those prior decisions and will have a real impact on Wyoming.

The 186-page decision is long and thorough, full of factual findings and legal analysis. It is impossible to do it justice in a short op-ed, but the biggest takeaway is that Wyoming has not been meeting its constitutional obligations. Our state has not done what it needs to do to provide an equal and quality education to our state’s children, and our Legislature now must change how it addresses education funding to meet those constitutional requirements.

The biggest areas identified by the court are 1) failing to consider the actual costs to provide a quality education, especially the impacts of inflation and personnel costs, 2) failing to provide funding for areas of education that are now considered necessary for a quality education, and 3) failing to provide an equitable system for funding school facilities. These are all major components of education funding that must be considered by our Legislature.

So, where does this leave us moving forward? The Legislature has its work cut out for it. Performing the analysis required by this case is not easy, and it will likely result in a requirement for additional spending on education in Wyoming. When paired with the Legislature’s apparent desire to cut revenue, this sets us on a difficult path.  

There are only three options. Option one is that the Legislature finds new revenue, meaning they raise taxes or impose new ones. This runs counter to the current trend in the Legislature but is likely the wisest long-term solution.  

Option two is the Legislature cuts spending elsewhere to account for the increase in education funding. Despite the current rhetoric, our state and local governments are already lean, and this would require a reduction in fundamental government operations that would cause many of our citizens to feel the pinch. Few of us want our lawmakers to choose not to plow or maintain roads because they have allocated those funds to education instead. We can and should be able to do both.  

Option three is our Legislature mortgages our future for convenience now. They may not be able to avoid the temptation to spend down our savings and dip into our investment funds rather than make the tough but necessary decisions to build a sustainable system. This is the worst of all options, but the one I fear is the easiest to choose.  

Our legislators are elected to make hard decisions. Now is their time to do just that. During the 2025 and 2026 legislative session, they will need to take action to fix the constitutional shortfalls in our education funding system. We will soon see whether they are serious about the future of our state or whether they are more interested in taking the easy way out.