What is included in the “suitable” education that the Kansas Constitution requires the state to provide to students in kindergarten through high school?

It’s a question that is much in debate, but members of the Kansas House may be trying to zero in on a definition that worries some observers.

After some initial elation at last week’s passage of a $155 million school finance plan in the House, school advocates are raising the alarm about a provision in the bill that would narrow the scope of school programs the state is legally required to fund. The provision, according to House Speaker Doug Mays, “begins to address the definition of a suitable education and what the responsibility of the state is.”

It also, of course, begins to define what the responsibility of the state isn’t, which is what’s worrying many Kansans.

The bill would require all Kansas public schools to provide classes in reading, writing, math, spelling, English grammar, geography, history, government, citizenship, social science, science, computer technology, fine arts, foreign language, physical education, health and hygiene, career education and industrial technologies. Those, subjects, in many people’s minds, represent a pretty well-rounded education.

But the list of programs or services left to the discretion of local school districts includes many programs that also seem essential: nursing services, counseling, libraries, activities programs, professional development for certified employees, extended learning time, alternative schools, early childhood programs, school psychologists and social workers, and technical education.

These two lists almost certainly are being considered at least in part because of pressure the Legislature is feeling from Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock’s ruling that the state’s school finance formula is unconstitutional. Two key elements of that ruling are that state funding is 1) insufficient and 2) unfairly distributed among local school districts.

It seems that some legislators hope to narrow the definition of a “suitable” education to make it easier to address those two concerns. It would be much easier for the state to sufficiently and fairly fund just the basic education list. But if greater responsibility for funding the discretionary list is shifted to local districts, inequities are sure to increase. Voters in Lawrence or Johnson County might be quite willing to raise local taxes to provide additional programs, but districts in places with smaller tax bases might be unable to fund programs that are no less important there than in a wealthy district.

Those inequities are exactly the reason Kansas implemented the current school finance formula and statewide funding system — at the behest, by the way, of an earlier court ruling by Judge Bullock. Bullock believed then that equalizing school funding was part of providing a “suitable” education, and there’s no reason to think he has changed his mind.

The prospect of returning more control to local school districts certainly has some appeal, but the House may be trying to draw too tight a boundary around the state’s responsibility for a “suitable” education. It seems unlikely that leaving such basic responsibilities as libraries, counseling and professional development to the discretion of local districts will draw a favorable reaction in the courts.