Topeka ? Legislators are more likely to ask “why?” than “how high?” if a judge orders them to jump up and fix the way the state pays for education.

They appear inclined to wait for the Kansas Supreme Court to rule on a pending legal challenge to the system, rather than rewrite the 1992 school finance law if Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock decides legislators are not providing a suitable education for all children.

Attorneys sued the state in 1999 on behalf of parents and administrators in the Salina and Dodge City school districts, arguing that the state neither spends enough on its public schools nor distributes the money fairly. Testimony in that lawsuit ended last week in district court.

Sentiment against responding to Bullock is a contrast to views 12 years ago, when a pretrial order from Bullock in a previous school finance lawsuit sent state officials scurrying for solutions.

The 1992 law passed only seven months after Bullock’s order, without a trial.

Not enough money

Under its current budget, the state expects to provide $2.6 billion to its 302 school districts, with local school budgets set at $3,863 per student.

But many educators believe the state should be spending much more. They point to a 2002 study by Denver consulting firm Augenblick and Myers, which said the state should be spending $4,650 per pupil — and $852 million more a year, total.

Attorneys challenging the school finance law also argue that it is unfair because it provides extra funds to small districts, then allows all districts to exceed their state-set budgets by 25 percent by levying additional local property taxes. Critics argue that so-called local option budgets give wealthy districts an advantage over their poorer cousins.

The state defended its law as fair and, with testimony from school finance researchers, suggested that money alone would not eliminate differences in standardized test scores among white and minority, rich and poor students.

Legislative leaders have appointed a special committee on school finance issues, but its first meeting is this week, and there’s no expectation of a new school finance law in 2004.

“I think it’s a political issue that a lot of people would just as soon not deal with,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. “I think we’re at the phase of pulling the covers over the head and hoping that it all goes away, but it’s not going to go away.”

Timid lawmakers

In 1991 and 1992, evidence of the school finance system’s unfairness seemed compelling, because districts relied heavily on local property taxes, which varied widely with each district’s property wealth. Richer districts had an easier time raising money for their programs.

Kansas now imposes a statewide property tax levy of 20 mills, or $69 a year on a $50,000 home, to finance schools with disparities in spending depending upon local option budgets and factors such as a district’s size, its programs for poor children and its transportation costs.

Bob Stephan, then the attorney general, said that in 1991, “Those of us involved were convinced of the correctness of Judge Bullock’s ruling.”

In 1992, legislators engineered a huge tax shift, lessening reliance on property taxes in favor of sales and income taxes. Yet, even with the largest property tax cut in Kansas history, the state still put additional dollars into the public school system.

To eliminate perceived unfairness now — and keep enough districts from seeing themselves as losers — could require tens of millions of new dollars, perhaps $300 million or more. In turn, a tax increase would follow, when the economy continues to struggle.

Stephan, now a legal consultant who travels extensively, said policymakers in many states were “timid about costs.”

“It’s all about money, all over the country, regardless of the leadership,” he said. “Everywhere I go, you get this feeling of apprehension.”

Those factors make it likely that legislators will not pay much heed to how Bullock rules.