"This court cannot idly stand by as the legislature makes unfulfilled promises for reform."

— Washington Supreme Court, McCleary v. State

The unanimous ruling — two justices dissented over the court retaining jurisdiction in the case — changes the game for state lawmakers beginning to pare billions in spending. Gov. Chris Gregoire's proposed spending for education, usually the starting point, must be viewed with an eye toward the court's ruling.

"It's very clear from the decision that cutting education is a non-starter in this budget," says Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

"We may come to the conclusion that we're not able to cut any education funding at all."

That's about right. Should the Legislature be tempted to do otherwise, the court should fire off a writ of mandamus commanding legislative leaders to follow the state constitution.

The high court is not playing around. The nearly 80-page opinion underscores how much justices grasped not just the state's failure to invest in education, but the contrivances employed over the years to hide it, chiefly the use of local levy dollars to supplant state funding.

Pressure from the high court is timely. Education remains the best answer we've got to emerging from the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression with more than a barrel for clothing. Good-paying jobs require skills and an education level that begins with a K-12 educational system that prepares students for college or the workforce.

The court is not only saying do not cut education, but also to invest in it. Demonstrable progress toward the 2018 deadline for fully funding education will likely require a $500 million down payment this biennium, perhaps double that in the next biennium.

Rational reforms on the fiscal and academic side of K-12 education are critical right now. Hunter has spent the past six years understanding the complexities of education funding. More steeped in this area than most of his colleagues, he steps in with some thoughtful ideas:

• A revenue-neutral replacement of some school levies with state property tax, staying within the constitutional 1 percent annual limit. The switch would move $1 billion of existing excess levies into the tax structure — on the revenue side. It would also make the statutory $3.60 per $1,000 set-aside for public education a more reliable source of funding not subject to voter whim.

• Increase the state property tax rate from the current $2.03 per thousand dollars of property value to $3.20, raising about $1 billion in funding for public schools.

• Distribute the new money to districts using the normal school-funding formulas, and simultaneously reduce each district's local levy by the amount of new money they receive.

I'm not wild about burdening taxpayers with higher property taxes while the economy is still recovering and foreclosure rates remain high. Taxes would likely go up in places like Seattle, where a large population sharing the tax burden keeps school levies low. But Hunter offers a compelling statewide vision for school districts. It creates more revenue and it levels the playing field in the current system that is tilted toward school districts with the highest property values being able to raise more money.

As political leaders look for more money, they should also look to pair spending with key reforms. Yes, local districts from Spokane to Seattle know their educational needs best. But the state is right to demand a say in everything from textbooks to health-care benefits.

The state Supreme Court's ruling shifts the education funding debate from whining to action. A good starting point is Hunter's plan.

Lynne K. Varner's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her email address is lvarner@seattletimes.com