## Facts

- A certified class of Washington adult-prison inmates sought access to public basic education through age 21, and special education through age 22 for disabled students.
- Named plaintiffs included inmates under 21 and disabled inmates under 22; defendants were the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections.
- Plaintiffs challenged the State’s prison-education scheme under Washington Constitution article IX and state education statutes, and also asserted federal claims.
- The case was decided on stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court ruled for the inmate class on state constitutional and statutory claims, declared RCW 28A.193 unconstitutional, and dismissed the federal claims; enforcement was stayed pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington Constitution article IX and the Basic Education Act require the State to provide basic and special education to inmates ages 18–21 (and disabled inmates to 22) confined in adult correctional institutions.
2. Whether RCW 28A.193, which generally limits Department of Corrections juvenile-education programming to inmates under 18 (and some 18-year-olds), violates article IX’s “paramount duty” and “general and uniform” requirements.
3. Whether limiting prison-based education for older inmates violates state equal protection guarantees.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for the inmate class on state constitutional and Basic Education Act claims.
- The Court upheld RCW 28A.193 as constitutional.
- The Court left undisturbed the dismissal of the federal claims.
- The result was judgment for the State on the inmates’ broad claim to mandatory prison-based basic and special education through ages 21/22.

## Legal Principles

- Article IX’s “paramount duty” to provide education to “all children” was construed primarily in the context of the general public school system; it does not compel identical educational provision for adults incarcerated in adult prisons.
- The Basic Education Act, read as a whole and alongside related statutes, does not require the State to provide the full set of basic education services to all 18–21-year-old inmates in adult correctional facilities.
- The legislature may create distinct educational delivery models for incarcerated persons and may treat juveniles of compulsory school age differently from adult inmates without violating article IX’s “general and uniform” mandate.
- A statutory scheme that prioritizes educational programming for younger inmates and limits specialized Department of Corrections juvenile programs to those under 18 (with limited inclusion of some 18-year-olds) satisfies rational-basis review and does not violate state equal protection.

## Conclusion

The court held that Washington’s constitutional and statutory education obligations do not entitle inmates in adult prisons to the same basic or special education services available in community schools through ages 21/22, and it sustained the legislature’s choice to concentrate Department of Corrections juvenile-education programming on inmates who are under 18.


Tunstall ex rel. Tunstall v. Bergeson, 5 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2000)