Topeka ? The judge slated to decide whether the state’s school finance law is meeting its constitutional obligation to minority students laid down some ground rules Monday for the case he is set to try Sept. 22.

With his Monday rulings, Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock also put the responsibility of school funding directly on the Kansas Legislature, dismissing Gov. Kathleen Sebelius from the lawsuit challenging the school finance method.

Bullock made it clear that his decision would be guided by the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal education opportunity for all public school students, not solely by dollars spent per pupil.

“At bottom, this constitutional requirement is about education,” Bullock wrote, spelling out what he would consider in the case. “In other words, small-minded people with calculators could worry about small differences in per-pupil expenditures and still miss the point: It’s about equal educational opportunities.”

Bullock’s rulings come two weeks before the trial in which poor school districts are suing the state.

Those districts say the state’s method of financing schools shortchanges minority students by allocating more money per student to school districts that are predominantly white. School funding makes up more than one-half of the state budget, about $2.6 billion in the current year.

Bullock said the test to determine whether school funding was equitable would depend on whether every Kansas student had an equal opportunity.

“Accordingly, whether any Kansas child is of a minority race, or is a slow learner, or suffers a learning disability, or is rich or poor, or lives east or west, or any other consideration, that child is ‘our child,’ and our constitution guarantees that child an equal educational opportunity consistent with his or her natural abilities,” Bullock wrote.

He said any difference in funding from one district to another should be “suspect” and could only be justified “by a rational explanation (basis), which will usually be related to varying costs incurred in providing essentially equal educational opportunities. This test seems to be adequate for all purposes relevant to the current controversy.”

¢Montoy v. State of Kansas — Memorandum Decision and Order¢Letter from Bullock on his decision¢Freshman legislators ready for school fight, part II (8-24-03)

Alan Rupe, an attorney representing the poor districts, welcomed most of Bullock’s words.

“These seem like pretty appropriate goal posts at this point. So, if we’re kicking a ball, these are pretty decent uprights to head between. I think our evidence absolutely shows that unequal treatment and disparity.”

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, who is defending the current finance system, said Kline was reviewing Bullock’s decisions.

In his order dismissing Sebelius and State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins from the litigation, Bullock said the constitutional mandate of school funding “is directed at the Legislature alone. Consequently, there is no need to have the governor or the state treasurer as individual parties.”

And Bullock added: “Finally, in case the Court has not been crystal clear, the Court takes the view that this case is about children and their suitable — and equal — educational opportunities. Nothing else. If we all keep our focus on the children, I believe we shall reach the goal our constitution mandates.”

Bullock’s decisions in earlier school finance cases played a big role in the state’s current school finance law, which was written in 1992 after Bullock warned lawmakers that the previous finance formula had become unconstitutional because of schooling inequities. That law created the statewide property tax levy for schools.