Rep. Chad Magendanz, R-5th, has, for the second time, misrepresented the Washington state Supreme Court’s ruling on McCleary. In his Jan. 30 and Feb. 20 newsletters, he insists the Supreme Court is demanding further education reforms before full fund needs to be resolved.

The sentence Rep. Magendanz uses is taken from a section of the decision entitled “Funding the Basic Education Program with Local Levies.” The section consists of six paragraphs (150-155), all of which address the issue of reliance upon local levies in lieu of state funding. It defies logic to suggest the focus of a sentence in the last paragraph of this section on funding is, instead, a reference to something entirely different.

If Rep. Magendanz proposes to hold up full funding of basic education until he get some list of reforms accomplished, I’d appreciate it if he’d make clear that is his decision and/or the caucus’s decision. To pretend it’s something required by the state Supreme Court is simply not accurate.

Ken Mortland, Kirkland