by Mary Rupert
The Kansas Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision that the state’s school funding is inadequate.
The decision is expected to set off an effort in the Kansas Legislature to come up with a school funding formula by a deadline of June 30, 2017. The court has stayed its decision enforcement until that date.
By the June 30 deadline, according to the court decision, if the state has not demonstrated to the court that it can meet the adequacy requirements, the court said that the state would not have a legally valid system.
The Kansas City, Kansas, Public School district is one of the four school districts that are plaintiffs in the Gannon case. The other districts in the case were Wichita, Hutchinson and Dodge City. The state of Kansas had appealed an earlier decision from Shawnee County District Court.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued a statement (see below) this afternoon that called upon the Legislature to work on a new school finance formula and submit it before the June 30 deadline.
Gov. Sam Brownback issued a statement this afternoon that stated the old funding formula failed many students, and that a school funding system was needed that “puts students first.” Success would be measured in student performance, he stated. He also stated that the parents of struggling students should be equipped with the power “to determine the best education for their child.” (See full statement below.)
Alan Rupe, an attorney for the school districts, said that today’s decision supports the trial court’s roadmap for adequacy that had a price tag of around $800 million.
During the trial, Rupe said that Superintendent Cynthia Lane with teachers and administrators from the Kansas City, Kansas, district testified that they knew how to adequately educate children.
“This means, if the Legislature and governor live up to their responsibility, they’ll now have the resources to do what they know how to do,” Rupe said. He said it is a “real victory” for Kansas City, Kansas, kids and all kids in Kansas.
While the $800 million potential cost of bringing the schools up to the adequate level may seem high, Rupe said that this is a problem that was created by the Legislature and the governor.
“Since 2009, there has been tons of money taken out of the public school system in the face of increasing demands,” he said. “They’re really fixing a problem they created.”
Also, he said the Kansas Constitution does not say an adequate education has to be affordable in a way the state’s leaders may think is right. Students have a constitutional right to an adequate education, he said.
“At a time when the president of the United States is talking about investing in our infrastructure, I couldn’t think of a better investment the Kansas Legislature could make than investing in our workforce,” Rupe said. To assure students of an adequate education seems like the best investment the people could make, he said.
Rupe said this will be the end of the court challenges if the Legislature and governor follow the court’s directive. If they don’t live up to their responsibilities, he said he could see this going back to court.
In a news release, the Kansas City, Kansas, Public Schools stated the decision is a good one for the district’s 22,500 schoolchildren.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the constitutional requirement for adequacy in school funding across the state,” Superintendent Lane stated in the release. “This ruling is a victory for school children throughout the state of Kansas. Our legislature is now challenged to implement sound and responsible tax policies which will allow them to meet the mandates of this court decision.”
The school district stated in the news release that the key points of the decision included that the school finance system in Kansas was unconstitutional in regards to adequacy; the current system was not reasonably calculated so that all students could reach constitutionally adequate minimum levels of achievement; school funding must be tied to actual costs of getting students to adequacy; the deadline is June 30, 2017, to create a constitutionally adequate school finance system, or schools will be unable to open; and the court retains jurisdiction over the case.
“This really isn’t a surprise,” State Sen. Pat Pettey, D-6th Dist., a retired teacher and former school board member from Turner, said today. “The surprise would have been if the courts had ruled differently.”
She said that all along, the expectation has been that the state has not been funding schools adequately.
“This will just add to the pressure of getting a new school finance formula prepared, and it will reinforce the fact that we will have to be, as a state, providing adequately for all children, no matter where they live,” she said. “We have done a fair job in the past. We had a good formula that addressed the issues, but we weren’t funding it. So now the courts have stepped forward again to say you have a responsibility constitutionally to fund education, K-12 education.
“I’m optimistic with the Legislature we have in place now, that we’re willing to look at the responsibility and address the issues in a fair and honest way, and not throw it back to the courts,” Sen. Pettey said.
State Rep. Val Winn, D-34nd Dist., who serves on the House Education Budget Committee and the Education Committee, said the Supreme Court’s decision was expected and shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Rep. Winn, a college professor, is a member of the Kansas City, Kansas, Board of Education.
“Now is the time to put away all the little games, get busy and get a formula,” Rep. Winn said.
The school finance formula will be required by the court to be structurally sound, and the manner in which it is implemented would have to satisfy the Rose standards, she said. (See https://www.kasb.org/assets/Publications/Rose%20Capacities%20Primer_Fall%202014.pdf)
In the Kansas House, there have been committee hearings with information on school finance legislation, she said. There have been some unique committee presentations on how to craft the formula that wouldn’t pass court muster, she added.
One bill, from a coalition of moderates, Democrats and Republicans, would be very similar to the formula the state had in the past, she said.
“It was constitutional and it works; it just wasn’t funded,” she said.
The Legislature now needs a tax plan, Rep. Winn said. The House overrode the governor’s veto on a tax plan that passed, but the Senate did not have the votes for the override. The Senate will have to deal with the tax plan, and not the governor’s, she added.
The legislative tax bill that passed both bodies, before being vetoed, restored a tax on LLC businesses and also added a third income bracket, with a higher tax on higher incomes. Rep. Winn said there is not much support in the House for the governor’s tax plan, with tobacco securitization.
She added local legislators are always concerned about taxes here, since residents can’t take any more taxes. And, at the same time, the state agencies are already cut to the bone, she added.
“It will be a very serious 30 days moving forward,” Rep. Winn said. “We don’t have time to play games, we really don’t.”
The statement from Kansas Attorney General Schmidt:
“The Kansas Supreme Court today ruled that the block-grant funding system currently in place violates the Kansas Constitution and must soon be replaced by a constitutional funding formula. The court adopted the deadline of June 30, 2017, a date previously established by the Legislature when it adopted the block grants almost two years ago. That deadline must be met.
“I urge the Legislature to enact a new school-funding system before it adjourns the 2017 regular session and with ample time for the Supreme Court to review the new enactment well before the June 30 deadline. Lengthy delay would impose needless strain and uncertainty on parents, students and school employees.
“In developing the new formula to fund public schools, the Legislature must take into account the many complex factors that affect student performance. Today’s ruling implies that the main focus needs to be on better educating those kids who are performing most poorly. In developing the new formula, the Legislature should once again ‘show its work’ to demonstrate to the Supreme Court how the legislative choices are reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed performance standards adopted by the Supreme Court.
“The people’s elected representatives in the Legislature face difficult decisions in the coming weeks. In addressing the system’s adequacy, the Legislature must take care to preserve the equity in distribution of funds that the court previously upheld.
“One thing is clear: The State’s interest in bringing this litigation to an end can best be met by a bold legislative response, enacted swiftly, squarely targeting the constitutional defects the court identified.”
Gov. Sam Brownback today issued the following statement regarding the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision on the Gannon case:
“The Kansas Supreme Court correctly observes that our education system has failed to provide a suitable education for the lowest performing 25 percent of students. The old funding formula failed our students, particularly those that struggle most. The new funding system must right this wrong.
“The Kansas Constitution empowers the legislative branch with the power of the purse. Respecting the separation of powers between our three co-equal branches of government, the Kansas legislature has already begun the work of writing a new school funding system. The Kansas legislature has the opportunity to engage in transformative educational reform by passing a school funding system that puts students first. Success is not measured in dollars spent, but in higher student performance.
“Over the last six years, my administration brought new opportunities targeting students who struggle to read and struggle to graduate high school on time. These evidence-based programs like Kansas Reading Roadmap and Jobs for America’s Graduates should be spread statewide, making them available to all students in the bottom 25 percent.
“Furthermore, the time has come to equip parents of struggling students with the power they need to determine the best education for their child. If they believe a quality education is not possible in their local public school, they should be given the opportunity and resources to set their child up for success through other educational choices.”
