Topeka ? After 76 days of working to improve education funding, legislators must wait a few more to know whether they passed the test.

Ultimately, the Kansas Supreme Court will grade the Legislature’s plan, which will boost annual state spending by up to $127 million. But school officials across the state are already offering their critique, with preliminary marks from just barely passing to outright failure.

Leoti Supt. Gary Akers said the additional money was more than schools had seen in many years, but he thinks it falls short of the Supreme Court’s mandate.

“I would be very surprised if the court will accept what little has been done,” Akers said.

In January, the court said legislators have failed to meet a “constitutional duty” to provide a suitable education for every Kansas child. To fix the problem, the court ordered lawmakers to increase aid to the state’s 301 school districts and distribute the money more fairly by April 12.

Many of the low grades for the Legislature’s plan are based on provisions allowing districts to raise local property taxes to augment the increase in state aid. Small-school administrators, like Akers, believe the bill favors suburban districts in Douglas, Johnson, Sedgwick and Shawnee counties. Those districts were granted greater authority to raise local property taxes than others.

Along with the increase in the base state aid, lawmakers included more money for special and bilingual education, and programs that assist low-income students. The boosts in state money range from a high of $696 per pupil in Prairie Heights in Decatur County, one of the state’s smallest districts, to $152 per pupil in Lansing in Leavenworth County.

Boon to wealthy districts?

When the newly available local property tax increases are considered, Olathe could increase its spending the most per pupil, by $1,155. The low would be $279 in Renwick in Sedgwick County.

In Shawnee County, Auburn-Washburn Supt. Brenda Dietrich has concerns about the bill helping wealthy districts more than poor ones, but said she the additional funds will help her district avoid reductions in staff and programs.

Other educators worried that legislators are moving toward requiring districts to use up all of their local property tax authority before state dollars are allocated.

“I hate to be cynical, but that’s the type of thinking that has evolved from this whole process,” said Lyndon Supt. Brian Spencer. “I don’t think the court will accept it.”

Ashland Supt. Jerry Cullen said legislators need to get serious about providing enough revenue for education and the rest of the state budget. He said districts will be disappointed if promised increases in state aid don’t turn up in future years.

“I don’t see how our legislators think that a plan like this will pass muster with the Supreme Court,” said Cullen, whose district of 216 students will receive about $76,000 in new state aid under the plan.

Chetopa, one of the state’s poorest districts, will get about $103,000 new state dollars. But Supt. Kim Juenemann said that leaves her district, which has a high percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced-priced lunches, with little room for improvements, especially with a growing enrollment. The extra local property tax authority would generate only about $42,600.

“We are facing a financial crunch, issues like the high cost of health insurance, low salaries for our staff, the killing expense of fuel prices,” she said.

While legislators gave schools more money for special education, Neil Guthrie said it was less than the Wichita district needs. The district’s director of special education, Guthrie said the state’s largest school district will still need to transfer about $30 million from its general operating budget to pay for special education.

Legislators need to develop a plan that takes into account actual costs of providing an education, Guthrie said, realizing that costs in urban areas are different than in suburban and rural districts.

“It needs to be tied to reality,” he said.