Topeka ? While the Kansas Supreme Court has become the center of attention in the debate over the state’s school finance formula, its ruling on the constitutionality of the funding plan won’t end a saga that started five years ago.

One reason is that parents and administrators who sued the state in Shawnee County District Court and now await a Supreme Court ruling filed a similar case in U.S. District Court in Wichita. In both cases, plaintiffs argue the state’s school funding formula distributes money unfairly, hurting poor and minority students the most.

Depending on the ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court and the response by legislators, the legal fight over the quality of education in Kansas could continue for years.

Forgotten federal case

Some legislators have forgotten that the federal case awaits. Instead, their eyes — and the eyes of others who are interested — have been fixed on the state case and today’s arguments before the Supreme Court.

In December, Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock ruled that the state’s scheme for distributing $2.7 billion in aid to school districts violated the Kansas Constitution by failing to provide a suitable education to all children. That lawsuit was filed in 1999 on behalf of parents and administrators in Dodge City and Salina.

At the same time, the same attorneys filed a case on behalf of many of the same plaintiffs in U.S. District Court, arguing that the school finance scheme violated the federal Constitution by discriminating against poor and minority students. The case argues that the plaintiffs’ civil rights are restricted if they do not have the same educational opportunities as other students.

Attorneys and U.S. District Judge Monti Belot have agreed to let the federal case simmer pending resolution of the state case.

Thus, legislators discussed only Bullock’s ruling when they considered more than two dozen proposals this years for increasing funding, including a package of tax increases worth about $155 million.

All efforts failed, and legislators resigned themselves to waiting for the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling before finding a solution.

‘Put on hold’

That ruling could come as early as October, but given the scope of the issues involved, it could be delayed until after the Jan. 10 start of the 2005 legislative session. Several committees are already working on proposals.

Live streamed broadcastsat 1:30 p.m. www.kscourts.org www.kanedlive.orgPast stories and information ‘Monumental’ ruling expected on school finance (8-29-04) Justices not likely to tip hands Monday (8-29-04) Varied voices weigh in on school finance case (8-29-04) Supreme Court justices at a glance (8-29-04) 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

House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney said legislators must make a serious effort to solve school funding issues, so that both court cases “are put to rest.”

“I don’t think most legislators realize that the federal case is out there and has been put on hold,” said McKinney, D-Greensburg.

House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, said he believes the federal courts will be reluctant to get involved in a state issue such as school funding.

Mays also said he does not think legislators can do anything to prevent litigation. If they change the school finance formula to suit one group of school districts, another is likely to sue, he said.

As for legislators and the federal case, Mays said, “I think they’ve probably heard of it at one time or another but probably have forgotten about it, because it’s so quiet while it’s been put on hold.”

Refused settlements

Alan Rupe, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, made a settlement offer in the federal case in 2003, which would have required the state to increase education spending by $868 million. Rupe sought the same remedy in November during closing arguments in Bullock’s courtroom and, not surprisingly, the state has rejected it.

Rupe said action at the federal level could be at least two years away. He said depending on how the Kansas court rules, “Most of the federal issues would become easier to resolve.”

Attorney Dan Biles is defending the State Board of Education and hopes that if the plaintiffs lose the state appeal, they at least take a breather before pressing the federal case.

“The existence of these cases, and the highly charged atmosphere around them, has in my opinion made it more difficult to get increased funding for schools, entrenched various viewpoints and made it impossible for legislators to come together on what is always a controversial subject anyway,” Biles said.

Rush to the courthouse

Kansas is hardly the only state embroiled in a battle over school funding, with at least 23 with cases pending in state or federal courts. Some litigation has been pending for years, including a case in West Virginia first filed in 1975.

And, if legislators rewrite the school finance formula next year because of the current litigation, they can expect their new funding scheme to face scrutiny as well.

With the potential for many school districts — and taxpayers — to be unhappy with a new formula, there very well could be a rush to the courthouse.

State and federal, that is.