Topeka ? If the Kansas Supreme Court wanted a lot of different views on how the state finances its schools, the seven justices got them — in spades.

Anti-tax groups, teachers unions, large school districts, small school districts, children’s advocates — even the group founded by civil rights activist Jesse Jackson — had plenty to say about the way Kansas distributes $2.7 billion in state aid. All took different roads but reached the same destination: The formula could use some work.

Justices received the written arguments in the weeks leading up to Monday’s scheduled hearing on school finance litigation. A dozen of them, known as friend of the court briefs, were filed by parties with a vested interest in the hearing’s outcome. Their attorneys will not argue during the hourlong hearing.

Dan Biles, attorney for the State Board of Education, said different perspectives of a case were typical, but he didn’t expect the number of briefs that were filed.

“The diversity of views expressed in the briefs is pretty dramatic and illustrates the difficulty in finding an educational viewpoint that satisfies everyone,” Biles said.

The case

The appeal involves a lawsuit filed in 1999 by parents and administrators in the Dodge City and Salina school districts. The parents say the state’s funding formula is unconstitutional because too much money goes to small rural districts with few minority students.

In December 2003, Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock ruled in their favor, finding the formula flawed and giving legislators until July 1 to fix the problems, including how money is allocated for programs helping poor and minority students.

Minority advocates

The friend of the court briefs amplified the problems that the trial highlighted.

For example, in its brief, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition was adamant that Kansas — like other states — neglects the civil rights of poor and disadvantaged students whose districts lack resources.

‘Monumental’ ruling expected on school finance Justices not likely to tip hands Monday Varied voices weigh in on school finance case Supreme Court justices at a glance 6News video: Kansas Supreme Court to hear arguments in school finance lawsuit (8-27-04) Preliminary order from Shawnee County District Court Judge Terry Bullock Denial of appeal Decision and order remedy More stories about the school finance issue

Quoting Jesse Jackson, the coalition evoked the legacies of abolitionist John Brown and the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. The brief characterized the lawsuit as being true to the state’s heritage, seeing it as part of an ongoing struggle for civil rights.

Attorney Janice Mathis wrote that minority and poor students were concentrated in school districts that received a disproportionately low amount of education funding. This “defacto segregation” means disadvantaged students too often receive a substandard education.

“Brown was a first down — not a touchdown,” wrote Mathis, a mantra Jackson used during the May dedication of the Brown National Historic Site in Topeka.

Taxpayer point of view

Meanwhile, Bob Corkins, attorney for the Kansas Taxpayers Network wrote that the Kansas Constitution requires legislators make “suitable provision for finance” for K-12 education, but does not address the quality of that education.

Moreover, Corkins wrote, simply adding more money to schools assumes that current levels are inadequate and that the additional dollars will be spent wisely, resulting in a better education.

“The court should discern the meaning of our state constitutional provisions rather than negate their plain meaning or insert new terms through judicial fiat,” Corkins wrote.

Alan Rupe, attorney for the Salina and Dodge City plaintiffs, said Corkins’ brief was well-written and well-thought out, but “I disagree with every word of it.”

Rupe was struck by the similar positions taken by the Topeka and Wichita school districts, as well as Rainbow/PUSH, which he said “preach the same chorus to the choir that we do for the plaintiffs.”

And while the crux of the case is spending for poor and minority students, Rupe added, “We’re failing the white kids, too.”

Local control at issue

Arguments from the DeSoto, Olathe and Blue Valley districts in Johnson County were a defense of local control. The districts — some of the wealthiest in Kansas — have fought since the formula was written in 1992 for increased authority to raise local property taxes to provide a better education than the state can afford.

However, the districts argued, instead of using additional local property taxes to pay for extras, such as technology, districts are using the money to pay for teacher salaries and to keep the lights burning.

Smaller school districts defended their funding levels, often criticized for being unjustified compared to urban peers. The districts argued that there are fixed costs to operate schools and pay teachers. With the funding formula based on enrollment, additional dollars are necessary to provide quality education in rural areas, small schools argue.