Today the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the block grant funding of school districts that was passed by the Kansas Legislature is unconstitutional.
One of the four plaintiffs in the lawsuit was the Kansas City, Kan., Public Schools.
In a news release, Superintendent Cindy Lane stated: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the constitutional requirement for equity in school funding across the state. Through this decision, the Supreme Court is making clear that the opportunity for a quality education must be available to all Kansas children, regardless of the zip code in which they live. This is good news, not only for students in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, but also for students and communities across the state.”
House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs, D-33rd Dist., stated in a news release: “We stand ready to invest in public education to ensure every child has a chance to succeed.”
Gov. Sam Brownback, in a statement today: ““Kansas has among the best schools in the nation and an activist Kansas Supreme court is threatening to shut them down. We will review this decision closely and work with the Legislature to ensure the continued success of our great Kansas schools.”
From a news release from the Kansas Supreme Court on the ruling:
The court issued its decision in Gannon v. State of Kansas, a dispute over K-12 public education financing.
The high court affirmed the ruling of a three-judge district court panel that the state had failed to correct unconstitutional inequities in Kansas’ school funding system. The court stayed the issuance of its mandate until June 30, 2016, effectively extending the time for the state to correct the inequities. The court also dismissed from the suit State Treasurer Ron Estes and former Secretary of Administration Jim Clark and denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees.
The plaintiffs are four school districts that sued the state in November 2010. Each district lost funding beginning in fiscal year 2009 after the Legislature eliminated capital outlay state aid and reduced appropriations for base state aid per pupil and supplemental general state aid. The school districts claimed these actions violated the education article of the people’s Constitution—Article 6—which requires the Legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”
In a decision issued March 7, 2014, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 6 contains both adequacy and equity components. In other words, the Legislature must provide enough funds to ensure public school students receive a constitutionally adequate education and must distribute those funds in a way that does not result in unreasonable wealth-based disparities among districts. Today’s decision addresses only the school districts’ equity claims; their adequacy claims are currently on hold.
In its March 2014 decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Legislature created unconstitutional funding disparities among districts when it withheld capital outlay state aid payments and reduced supplemental general state aid payments owed to certain districts in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012. The court returned the case to Shawnee County District Court and ordered the three-judge panel to review any legislative response for compliance with the people’s Constitution.
During its 2015 session, the Legislature amended the school funding system for fiscal year 2015 by revising the formulas for capital outlay state aid and supplemental general state aid. These changes resulted in a loss of about $54 million to lower-property wealth districts receiving the aid, while wealthier districts without need of the aid lost no funding. For fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Legislature repealed the existing system and enacted a block grant funding system that essentially froze school funding at 2015 levels.
The district court panel determined this 2015 legislation did not cure the unconstitutional inequities, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling today. The court determined that the legislative reductions actually increased wealth-based disparities among districts because they widened the gap between those districts receiving the aid and those without a need for it.
The court retained jurisdiction to review any legislation enacted in response to its ruling.
House Democrats responded to the ruling:
House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs, D-33rd Dist., issued this statement regarding the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling in the Gannon case:
“Gov. Brownback and his conservative allies in the legislature mismanaged our state, jeopardizing our children’s future. But rather than take responsibility for our state’s stagnant economy and self-inflicted budget crisis, Republicans choose to blame public education.
“In contrast, Democrats value schools, teachers, and our children’s futures. We know our schools are the bedrock of our communities and are crucial to rebuilding the Kansas economy. We stand ready to invest in public education to ensure every child has a chance to succeed.”
The Kansas City, Kan., Public Schools sent out this news release:
Kansas Supreme Court has once again ruled in favor of Kansas school children. In a ruling today, in the Gannon vs. State of Kansas school funding case, the court found that Kansas SB 7, more commonly known as the block grant bill, creates inequity between school districts and is unconstitutional.
Here are some of the key points in the decision:
• SB 7 does not cure the inequities found in the Gannon decision.
• The Court is giving the legislature until June 30, 2016, to correct these inequities.
• If the legislature does not cure the inequities in SB 7, then the entire school funding system is unconstitutional, and schools will not be able to open in August.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the constitutional requirement for equity in school funding across the state,” said Dr. Cynthia Lane, superintendent of the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS). “Through this decision, the Supreme Court is making clear that the opportunity for a quality education must be available to all Kansas children, regardless of the zip code in which they live. This is good news, not only for students in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, but also for students and communities across the state.”
KCKPS was part of a group of school districts which went to court after the Kansas Legislature, in March of 2015, passed a block grant bill which cut an additional $50 million in funding for schools across Kansas, and froze funding levels for schools for the next two budget years. These reductions were on top of the cuts that school districts across the state have seen for the past seven years. The Shawnee District Court ruled SB 7 unconstitutional in June 2015, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
District officials are still evaluating the impact of the decision, and will need to wait to see how the legislature will implement the court’s order. Nevertheless, the decision is good news for the 22,000 children in KCKPS.
History of school finance litigation
KCKPS was a lead plaintiff in the original lawsuit filed in 2010 in Shawnee County District Court, which argued that the legislature was providing constitutionally inadequate levels of funding for schools in Kansas. A three-judge trial court ruled in January 2013 for the plaintiffs, finding that the cuts reduced per-pupil expenditures far below a level “suitable” to educate all children under Kansas’ standards.
To remedy the funding shortfall, the judges ordered that per-pupil expenditures be increased to $4,492 from $3,838, the level previously established as suitable. Rather than comply, the state appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, which ruled funding levels unconstitutional. In 2015, the legislature passed and the Governor signed a block grant bill, which froze funding levels for two years, and eliminated equalization for capitol outlay. It was this change that was appealed up to the Supreme Court, which divided the case into two parts, equity and adequacy. The court heard arguments on the equity portion in November, and issued its ruling today. Oral arguments in the adequacy portion of the case are not scheduled until this spring.
This is not the first time the state has been involved in litigation for providing inadequate funding to schools. In 1999, school districts filed suit in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, alleging the financing system established by the state Legislature did not meet the Kansas Constitution’s requirement to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” The court ruled in favor of the schools in that case, which also went to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.
Today’s court ruling is at http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2016/20160211/113267.pdf